PDA

View Full Version : Online shopping lens



vexorian
September 22nd, 2012, 11:37 PM
What's the point?
http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2012/09/online-shopping-features-arrive-in-ubuntu-12-10#comment-659328107

I will just disable it when I install 12.10. But it is hard to understand why add it in the first place. If I wanted to search for something to buy in Amazon, I would grab my browser window and go to amazon... I don't think this feature is ever going to be useful.

What this feature will accomplish is going to be making more [different DE] and [different distro] geeks bash on ubuntu. I can already picture the smear posts "Ubuntu now forces amazon ads on you while you look for stuff in your computer!." "privacy issue" "gurrgh". Oh the whining. All in all, this feature will surely manage to annoy me even if I disable it, due to all the discussions I will have to read.

Can't it just be disabled by default? Or how about adding a small text button "Disable shopping suggestions" next to the "View more results" thing.

yanom
September 22nd, 2012, 11:45 PM
there is a privacy issue, though. anything you type into the lens gets sent to Amazon's server, and they do log searches and IPs. even when you're trying to search your own machine. Canonical needs to address this.

vexorian
September 22nd, 2012, 11:47 PM
You can disable it :/

I wonder if Amazon is really going to be able to do that much with such information. Would be nice if there was a way to see all your latest dash searches. I bet mine would include things like:
"Bej"
"swa"
"Hedg"
"gno"

I mean, I think that calling it a privacy issue is an exageration. It is more of a pointless annoyance.

oldos2er
September 22nd, 2012, 11:50 PM
there is a privacy issue, though. anything you type into the lens gets sent to Amazon's server.

Makes sense, since it's a shopping lens. As noted, it's easy to uninstall it if you don't want it.

wojox
September 22nd, 2012, 11:52 PM
Oh the whining.

Has already started. :p

vexorian
September 22nd, 2012, 11:53 PM
It's meta-whining, which is a superior form of whining.


Makes sense, since it's a shopping lens. As noted, it's easy to uninstall it if you don't want it.
It is not necessary for the info to go to amazon though. The searches could go to an ubuntu server whom works as a proxy, then Amazon wouldn't be able to tell which IPs are doing which searches.

wojox
September 23rd, 2012, 12:13 AM
It's meta-whining, which is a superior form of whining.

touché :lolflag:

yanom
September 23rd, 2012, 01:00 AM
It's meta-whining, which is a superior form of whining.


It is not necessary for the info to go to amazon though. The searches could go to an ubuntu server whom works as a proxy, then Amazon wouldn't be able to tell which IPs are doing which searches.

It should be set up this way.

bkerensa
September 23rd, 2012, 01:04 AM
I think Canonical should separate this into its own section like video and music and keep it of the home portion of the Unity Dash and should issue a privacy policy for search data.

Other than that I do not think its a terrible feature.... maybe not precise or elegant but not terrible.

cariboo907
September 23rd, 2012, 01:21 AM
What's the point?
http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2012/09/online-shopping-features-arrive-in-ubuntu-12-10#comment-659328107

I will just disable it when I install 12.10. But it is hard to understand why add it in the first place. If I wanted to search for something to buy in Amazon, I would grab my browser window and go to amazon... I don't think this feature is ever going to be useful.

What this feature will accomplish is going to be making more [different DE] and [different distro] geeks bash on ubuntu. I can already picture the smear posts "Ubuntu now forces amazon ads on you while you look for stuff in your computer!." "privacy issue" "gurrgh". Oh the whining. All in all, this feature will surely manage to annoy me even if I disable it, due to all the discussions I will have to read.

Can't it just be disabled by default? Or how about adding a small text button "Disable shopping suggestions" next to the "View more results" thing.

You created a bug report I hope, and if so can you give us a link?

vexorian
September 23rd, 2012, 01:29 AM
A bug report? I suspect you got the wrong thread.

wojox
September 23rd, 2012, 01:46 AM
A bug report? I suspect you got the wrong thread.

When people feel there is a problem with the behaviour of a certain application, they file a bug.

scottro
September 23rd, 2012, 01:46 AM
Well, apparently there's already a big thread on Reddit.

As for me, I'm more concerned about what will happen to Amy and Rory. (If you don't get the reference, don't worry.)

wojox
September 23rd, 2012, 02:00 AM
Don't include remote searches in the home lens (https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/unity-lens-shopping/+bug/1054776)

vexorian
September 23rd, 2012, 02:05 AM
That's a good one. It should also prevent other lenses from doing the same. Like the wikipedia one.

I usually avoid making feature removal requests through bug reports. But if that report helps I will do it in the future.

vexorian
September 23rd, 2012, 04:10 PM
Mark Shuttleworth clarifies that searches go through ubuntu's servers and thus Amazon does not collect your IP's data: http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2012/09/mark-shuttleworth-explains-ubuntus-new-amazon-adware-feature

But honestly, this time he is utterly lying in claiming that they are not ads. "Shopping suggestions" that could possibly (and frequently) appear when you are not looking to buy things. And that causally give Canonical an earning. They are ads.

If this was just about making the dash useful. It could easily be an opt-in thing. Let users looking forward to search for products from the home tab able to activate by default.

yanom
September 23rd, 2012, 07:04 PM
Mark Shuttleworth clarifies that searches go through ubuntu's servers and thus Amazon does not collect your IP's data

That means he's at least trying to protect user privacy. Good for him.

exploder
September 23rd, 2012, 07:18 PM
I do not see anything wrong with the Online shopping lens, it is a convenience that some may find useful. I don't really see anyones privacy in any danger. Shuttelworth has said that this is just the beginning for the dash and that eventually a person will be able to find anything from it. This kind of thinking is innovative to me, sure I might not need these features but what about elderly people and people that are new to using a computer in general?

I would prefer to give ideas like this a chance because I just might end up liking and using them. People are too quick to complain and many have not even tried the new lens.

BigSilly
September 23rd, 2012, 07:25 PM
Well, apparently there's already a big thread on Reddit.

As for me, I'm more concerned about what will happen to Amy and Rory. (If you don't get the reference, don't worry.)

It's extremely worrying! I hope they don't die, but I have a feeling it will be pretty final. :(

Linuxratty
September 23rd, 2012, 07:25 PM
I do not see anything wrong with the Online shopping lens, it is a convenience that some may find useful.

I agree...Even though I'm not using Unity, I do like this idea.If this was in Fallback,I'd use it.

vexorian
September 23rd, 2012, 08:57 PM
I do not see anything wrong with the Online shopping lens, it is a convenience that some may find useful. I don't really see anyones privacy in any danger. Shuttelworth has said that this is just the beginning for the dash and that eventually a person will be able to find anything from it. This kind of thinking is innovative to me, sure I might not need these features but what about elderly people and people that are new to using a computer in general?

I would prefer to give ideas like this a chance because I just might end up liking and using them. People are too quick to complain and many have not even tried the new lens.
The problem right now is that shopping searches happen everytime you search for something in the home lens. If you begin looking for Shotwell and type "Sh" you will see Shoe adverts from Amazon.

KiwiNZ
September 23rd, 2012, 09:16 PM
They should just add it as is, there will 500 plus threads anyway it is done, the same as if the default clock position was moved 1.5 pixels to the left.

exploder
September 23rd, 2012, 09:25 PM
The problem right now is that shopping searches happen everytime you search for something in the home lens. If you begin looking for Shotwell and type "Sh" you will see Shoe adverts from Amazon.

They will get it fixed up by the final release.


They should just add it as is, there will 500 plus threads anyway it is done, the same as if the default clock position was moved 1.5 pixels to the left.

Unfortunately, that is how it is. There is always plenty of complaining....

cariboo907
September 23rd, 2012, 10:38 PM
Mark's blog post should answer some of the questions about this new feature:

http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1182

overdrank
September 23rd, 2012, 10:49 PM
Mark's blog post should answer some of the questions about this new feature:

http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1182

Nice ;)

KiwiNZ
September 23rd, 2012, 11:19 PM
mark's blog post should answer some of the questions about this new feature:

http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1182

+1

AllRadioisDead
September 23rd, 2012, 11:37 PM
I'm sorry if I sound arrogant, but it seems to me like the whole blog post is just a giant load of Mark telling us what we want. The community is pretty pissed off as a whole and it's pretty obvious that we don't want this. This should be opt-in, not opt-out.

sammiev
September 23rd, 2012, 11:41 PM
When I use Win7 I do not get any ads well moving around within their software. Just my .02 cents.Now if I use hotmail which is a web app I do but not from installed software.

KiwiNZ
September 23rd, 2012, 11:42 PM
I'm sorry if I sound arrogant, but it seems to me like the whole blog post is just a giant load of Mark telling us what we want. The community is pretty pissed off as a whole and it's pretty obvious that we don't want this. This should be opt-in, not opt-out.

What statistical data and sources do you have to support the statement "The community is pretty pissed off as a whole and it's pretty obvious that we don't want this."

vexorian
September 23rd, 2012, 11:55 PM
I really dislike how Mark is not even willing to admit that these are ads. Amazon may not be paying for the placement, but they do pay for any hit. They are "shopping suggestions" that will be made without request for anything you search in the home lens. Ads can be useful, sometimes you go to your newspaper's ad section looking for houses on sale or stuff. They are still ads.


It makes perfect sense to integrate Amazon search results in the Dash, because the Home Lens of the Dash should let you find *anything* anywhereThis is going to be terrible design as long as there is no way to specify which lenses you want to show up in Home or not. Home lens should search for everything I want. Not for things I don't want to search for.



What we have in 12.10 isn’t the full experience, so those who leap to judgement are at maximum risk of having to eat their words later.

This means that at least for six months, the default experience in the latest ubuntu release will intentionally be trash. I am not sure who is going to eat their words.



Use Super-A. You can tell Unity exactly what you want to search. And in future you’ll be able to do that from the home lens, too, more easily than the current Lens Bar at the bottom of the Dash.

Can't we just wait for this future before adding this feature then? This feature was added and rushed after feature freeze. All with the intention to deliver a feature that is incomplete and will be unliked by users. What is the point?

------------
It doesn't matter what Mark thinks will happen in 14.04. If we have to stand two years of Ubuntu as an adware, then that is going to completely kill Ubuntu's PR. It will kill unity as a DE choice as it will be estigmatized as the thing that infest user experience with ads. (Even if it is not Canonical's intention for them to be ads, that's what they will be perceived as by new users). With the two years worth of bad PR, there might not be an Ubuntu to promote by the time 14.04 LTS can be released. So please.

Just remove the results from the home lens until there is a way to choose.

AllRadioisDead
September 23rd, 2012, 11:59 PM
What statistical data and sources do you have to support the statement "The community is pretty pissed off as a whole and it's pretty obvious that we don't want this."

The top posts on Reddit and Omg!Ubuntu are pretty good indications.

KiwiNZ
September 24th, 2012, 12:05 AM
Memo to Mark

Mark in order to avoid the inevitable 3,789,654 posts in 123,456 threads and subsequent stressing of our servers and not to mention your staff I humbly recommend that the next ubuntu release be a repeat launch of 4.10. This will mean there is no updates to cause mass histeria .

I have sir, the honour to remain your most obedient servant

KiwiNZ, G.C.M.G

KiwiNZ
September 24th, 2012, 12:11 AM
The top posts on Reddit and Omg!Ubuntu are pretty good indications.

They do not make up 'The community as a whole'

vexorian
September 24th, 2012, 12:14 AM
Could you please stop minimizing the utter issue? This is not a simple layout change. There have been plenty of changes in 12.10 and none is spawning a bug report with 200 "affects me" in few hours and 800 heat.

Go to the bug report page and read mikelococo's reply #44 (https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/unity-lens-shopping/+bug/1054776/comments/44). There are plenty of reasons, including legal ones to at least postpone this feature till 13.04.

Even Mark admits that this feature is currently not working currently. Since according to Canonical this is not a money making scheme, then I guess there is no rush to implement it. Yet it was implemented post-freeze. Do you really think this is such a critical improvement to the user experience that it deserves it to be rushed and implemented post-freeze even when in Mark's own words it is faaar from finished?

The feature is barely working at the same time. It gives adult suggestions without consideration of any parental controls. It gives suggestions for software that does not run in Ubuntu. In its current state the feature is not helpful at all and brings serious usability issues to the ubuntu experience. Needless to say , we postponed Nautilus 3.6 to 13.04 for much less.

This would be like Canonical putting Wayland right now. When Wayland is still quite young and very terribly flawed. Sure, we all think that when Wayland will be finished or even in the middle of the road then it will be a great improvement. But it is not a great improvement now. It is not even a mild improvement.

KiwiNZ
September 24th, 2012, 12:21 AM
Could you please stop minimizing the utter issue? This is not a simple layout change. There have been plenty of changes in 12.10 and none is spawning a bug report with 200 "affects me" in few hours and 800 heat.

Go to the bug report page and read mikelococo's reply #44. There are plenty of reasons, including legal ones to at least postpone this feature till 13.04.

Even Mark admits that this feature is currently not working currently. Since according to Canonical this is not a money making scheme, then I guess there is no rush to implement it. Yet it was implemented post-freeze. Do you really think this is such a critical improvement to the user experience that it deserves it to be rushed and implemented post-freeze even when in Mark's own words it is faaar from finished?

I have been here since day one, when ever there is a change to ubuntu be it large of be it small there is the inevitable chorus of "the whole community hate this" , "the whole community don't want this" etc etc etc from a minority of users.

The next stage will what ever thread is created about 12.10 the anti change groups will hijack these threads, for proof search the "change of button or Unity" threads.

If we are not willing to accept and try change we might as well just re release 4.10.

angryfirelord
September 24th, 2012, 01:30 AM
I think it's a nice idea since I do use Amazon and if it's a convenient way to send Canonical a few dollars, then I won't mind. The main issue here is that it turned into a bit of a PR disaster. I think the intention was for it to be added quietly in there as a test item and yet it turned out to be a big Linux media news story. It didn't help that the Slashdot title was sensationalized (as they always are), which added fuel to the flames.

The somewhat funny thing is though is that Ubuntu includes a tool called Zeitgeist, which has been included since 11.04. And yet, people certainly didn't cry about the end of the world. In fact, the EFF recently praised 12.04 for beefing up application security.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/03/ubuntu-1204-will-bring-os-level-privacy-options

In other words, don't necessarily listen to those with the biggest mouths. Here's a post saying that Ubuntu 6.06 was worse off than its predecessors: http://www.reviewlinux.com/dapper-drake-verdict-it-sucks-ubuntu-6-06-6.html

I'd be more concerned if the lens was using proprietary code. But seeing how it's open, you are more than free to inspect the workings of it.

vexorian
September 24th, 2012, 01:52 AM
EFF praises 12.04 because Zeitgeist does not call home and because you can actually control everything Zeitgeist does in 12.04.

This is the other issue. The privacy control doesn't manage the shopping lens correctly. So the EFF praise is unlikely to continue in 12.10 if Canonical insist on implementing this feature in this rushed, incomplete manner. 12.04 was transparent in privacy settings , but this feature will ensure that 12.10 is not.


In other words, don't necessarily listen to those with the biggest mouths. Here's a post saying that Ubuntu 6.06 was worse off than its predecessors You two are being very dismissive and quick to shut up criticism, trying to compare this fallback with any other rant about ubuntu.

Thus I am going to post reply #44 verbotin just so that it is not missed. Fasttracking this feature past feature freeze was a grave mistake. But it can be rectified easily by either making the shopping results not appear forcefully in dash home or by postponing the implementation of this feature to 13.04.



The bug is a proposal for a specific technical change (to have shopping-lens not included in the home lens in 12.10). I suppose it's an opinion whether that change is an improvement over the current plan, but there are certainly many facts that support the proposal:

1) It's a contentious feature, evidenced by this bug.
2) It's proposed for a default-on state in a widely used component (home lens).
3) It has privacy implications when compared to the previous state of home lens in 12.04. Home lens in 12.04 doesn't send queries to remote servers, shopping-lens does.
4) Those privacy implications aren't addressed by the privacy policy: Bug #1054741 (https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1054741)
5) And the privacy implications aren't disclosed upon use of home lens: Bug #1054782 (https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1054782)
6) Also the feature itself results in a lousy user experience due to poor results (Bug #1053678 (https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1053678)) and inappropriate adult results that aren't tied to any age assertation (Bug #1054282 (https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1054782))
7) Despite all of the above, the feature was introduced ***post-freeze*** with little community review: Bug 1053470 (https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1053470)
8 ) It appears that it was fast-tracked through freeze exception in spite of all the above issues because of executive support at Canonical: http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1182, which creates the appearance that community input isn't valued and that the privacy objections aren't respected.


But you guys feel free to ignore these completely valid concerns and dismissing it as the usual anti-change rants. It surely is great damage control.

diesch
September 24th, 2012, 02:15 AM
Memo to Mark

Mark in order to avoid the inevitable 3,789,654 posts in 123,456 threads and subsequent stressing of our servers and not to mention your staff I humbly recommend that the next ubuntu release be a repeat launch of 4.10. This will mean there is no updates to cause mass histeria .

I have sir, the honour to remain your most obedient servant

KiwiNZ, G.C.M.G

Get real: That would cause mass histeria, too.

JDShu
September 24th, 2012, 02:20 AM
Let's get real. It's been almost ten years and Canonical is still not turning a profit so they are getting desperate. Affiliate money is a straightforward way to monetize their large user base so they're experimenting with it.

yanom
September 24th, 2012, 02:21 AM
there are plenty of reasons, including legal ones to at least postpone this feature till 13.04.


+1

vexorian
September 24th, 2012, 02:23 AM
Let's get real. It's been almost ten years and Canonical is still not turning a profit so they are getting desperate. Affiliate money is a straightforward way to monetize their large user base so they're experimenting with it.
If Mark would say that he just needs ways to make ubuntu profitable and that turning unity into adware was the best thing he could do, then I would respect that. But Mark keeps claiming that this feature is not about making money. If it is not , then I think we could just postpone its implementation? If it really is about making money, then I wish Mark was honest with us.

KiwiNZ
September 24th, 2012, 02:27 AM
If Mark would say that he just needs ways to make ubuntu profitable and that turning unity into adware was the best thing he could do, then I would respect that. But Mark keeps claiming that this feature is not about making money. If it is not , then I think we could just postpone its implementation? If it really is about making money, then I wish Mark was honest with us.

Mark is being honest here http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1182

diesch
September 24th, 2012, 02:37 AM
If Mark would say that he just needs ways to make ubuntu profitable and that turning unity into adware was the best thing he could do, then I would respect that. But Mark keeps claiming that this feature is not about making money. If it is not , then I think we could just postpone its implementation? If it really is about making money, then I wish Mark was honest with us.

Why do you think Mark doesn't really thinks it is a useful feature to get commercial offers that match your searches? I'd say for those who like shopping (and have the money to do so) it really is.

fontis
September 24th, 2012, 06:25 AM
Another reason to change away from Ubuntu to Kubuntu.

This is appalling. I read Mark's blog post regarding this as well and it's just ridiculous. I don't mind customization options being available as opt-in choices, like Firefox or GS extensions but to have it by default?

I don't even use Amazon! And even if I did, if I want to search for something on amazon I would do it via the browser and not the actual OS. Now that aside, what about bandwidth issues?
This is just wrong. In all senses of the word it's just wrong.
The Unity choice... fine, I can go with it because it was a necessity considering the circumstances (even though I think the implementation sucks there was still a reason to go with a new DE) but ADs!?

I'm sorry, it doesn't matter how you twist and turn this around but this is definitely intrusive and definitely a dive in the wrong direction.

Gone fishing
September 24th, 2012, 06:28 AM
I posted this somewhere else


No this isn't acceptable - I don't want all my local searches, HUD sent to a remote server Amazon or even Canonical. I don't want this even if its safe and properly encrypted - this is my desktop. One of the reasons I hate using Windows is Adware / Spyware - We get this and next it wont just be the Dash but adverts popping up everywhere and our data being shared to all and sundry.

I have no problem with a shopping lens - If I use it its my choice and it might be handy, but on the home lens no way.

I like Ubuntu, Unity and generally the direction it is heading but this might cause me to change distro.

I've now read Marks post and feel slightly less annoyed. (Thanks KiwiNZ). However, I really still don't want all my personal use of Dash / Hud going to Canonical. Even if Amazon doesn't pay for the placements this is adware as Canonical will be paid. I can't help that feeling this is the thin end of the wedge and we will end up with increasingly intrusive adverts.

I guess that the majority of Ubuntu users would share my concerns. How you would get representative data on users views? I'm not sure. I suppose the forums could be used to contact a reasonable number of active users via the private message service to get a representative sample. However, my guess is that most users would be against.

The adware model failed with proprietary software, because it was awful and don't think we need or want an open-source resurrection of the same failed experiment.

malspa
September 24th, 2012, 07:05 AM
I've been reading as much as I can about this topic. So far, I'm not alarmed at all.

For one thing, it looks like it's easy enough to remove the shopping lens. That kinda ends any issues I might have with the whole thing.

And I figure that they'll end up making it easy to disable, anyway, considering the outcry.

Another thing is that it won't affect me for a long time, anyway. I'm using 12.04, and most likely I'll skip all future releases until the next LTS release comes out.

Also, even now I use GNOME Shell and Openbox in Ubuntu about as much as I use Unity. If I couldn't remove the shopping lens (and I see no reason why I wouldn't be able to do so), and if it bugged me enough, I'd just quit using Unity. No big deal.

So, I'm just kinda sitting back and watching everyone complain about this. Good entertainment for when I've got nothing better to do. Should be interesting to see how it all plays out.

kostkon
September 24th, 2012, 07:27 AM
Mark's blog post should answer some of the questions about this new feature:

http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1182
Check also Jono's response

http://www.jonobacon.org/2012/09/23/on-the-recent-dash-improvements/

fontis
September 24th, 2012, 08:00 AM
I've been reading as much as I can about this topic. So far, I'm not alarmed at all.

For one thing, it looks like it's easy enough to remove the shopping lens. That kinda ends any issues I might have with the whole thing.

And I figure that they'll end up making it easy to disable, anyway, considering the outcry.

Another thing is that it won't affect me for a long time, anyway. I'm using 12.04, and most likely I'll skip all future releases until the next LTS release comes out.

Also, even now I use GNOME Shell and Openbox in Ubuntu about as much as I use Unity. If I couldn't remove the shopping lens (and I see no reason why I wouldn't be able to do so), and if it bugged me enough, I'd just quit using Unity. No big deal.

So, I'm just kinda sitting back and watching everyone complain about this. Good entertainment for when I've got nothing better to do. Should be interesting to see how it all plays out.


The point isn't that you can remove it if you dont like it. The point is that it is there by default. When something is there by default it sends a signal saying that this is how the OS is meant to act/behave/look like.

Statia
September 24th, 2012, 08:06 AM
Once again, I am happy I am using KDE/Kubuntu instead of Unity/Ubuntu.

lads
September 24th, 2012, 08:28 AM
I quit using Google for web search some months ago for reasons similar to these. Obviously, since it can be turned off, I won't quit Unity over it. But for new users this kind of behaviour is in the least awkward and an unexpected break of privacy, weather the data goes to a Canonical or an Amazon server.

AllRadioisDead
September 24th, 2012, 08:51 AM
Jono's explanation was a lot better. His blog post was pretty informative about the recent design decisions and their benifets.

Mark's post was pretty much 'Trust us, this is best. You'll like it, and if you don't, you can go use another distro.'

vasa1
September 24th, 2012, 09:05 AM
... Good entertainment for when I've got nothing better to do. ...
Not just entertaining. I learned that meta has connotations of superiority
and that meta-whining is a superior form of whining. I'm looking forward to ortho- and para-whining.

Oh, and I didn't realize until now that so many people use(d) Unity.

Swagman
September 24th, 2012, 11:55 AM
Something I have noticed with new users...

I installed Mint on my Sister in laws machine at her request as she was fed-up with all the issues that kept cropping up.

She since bought an iPad2 and wanted dropbox installing on the laptop and "can I do it for her"?

When I went round there and told her to open firefox the very first thing she kept doing (no matter what the task/program) was to click top left of the screen and type in the search field.

I can't remember the exact details but I asked her "Why are you doing a search on your machine when what you're after is online ?"

"Oh, I always do it like this.. It's easier" !!

So it looks like Mr Shuttleworth is bang on the ball !

yanom
September 24th, 2012, 03:27 PM
this should be opt-in, not opt-out.
+1

junkbar
September 24th, 2012, 04:34 PM
I seriously hope civil liberties organizations like the EFF threaten legal action against Canonical. This "feature" is a direct violation of privacy for millions who don't know how to opt out of it.

BigSilly
September 24th, 2012, 04:43 PM
Check also Jono's response

http://www.jonobacon.org/2012/09/23/on-the-recent-dash-improvements/

Actually I didn't appreciate some of the points Jono made here. Yes I do use Amazon, but I wouldn't park them as central to my life, and I'm not sure pinning people as consumers is a great option either.

But generally on this, I'm waiting until it hits and I actually you know, get to use it before I decide what I think of it.

ZarathustraDK
September 24th, 2012, 05:38 PM
I don't mind the possibility of finding offers that I'm interested through my desktop. I do mind, though, if my desktop assumes to know WHEN I'm interested in finding good offers on stuff.

Basically I'm down with a shopping-section in Ubuntu, but it must be something you choose to enter. Make it a category in the Dash (or whatever the thingies at the bottom of the dash is called when you open it).

Second, rather than being constructed to be Amazon-only it must support (potentially) any vendor that gets onboard an affiliate programme. Why? Well, I as a danish person can't really use Amazons prices for anything; there's a plethora of different taxes and transport-tarrifs I have to pay if an item (most likely) resides in another country. If the Dash only linked up to amazon.com it'd really be useless to me.

My wet dream in this regard would be a shopping-category in the Dash (ie. NOT offers mixed with apps when I search for "VLC" in Dash's primary search-dialog) that allows for "drop-in" of vendors as they join the affiliate-program, and with a full Dash-window's worth of filters and queries that I can use to narrow down my product-search with.

In other words, if you want to make a shopping-mall, do it like a baws, not like Clippy.

malspa
September 24th, 2012, 05:40 PM
The point isn't that you can remove it if you dont like it. The point is that it is there by default. When something is there by default it sends a signal saying that this is how the OS is meant to act/behave/look like.

Yeah, but how many people install a distro and leave everything at the defaults? I certainly don't. I don't expect any distro to come just like I want it by default.

I will never understand how so many people can get a totally free ($0.00) operating system and then complain that it doesn't come just like they want it out of the box.

I'm not disagreeing that it should be opt-in instead of opt-out. But, sheesh, run sudo apt-get remove unity-lens-shopping or whine and wring your hands, people. As they say, "Linux is about choice." ;)

Primefalcon
September 24th, 2012, 06:06 PM
I use amazon a lot and I will use the shopping lens, to me it'll be very useful

GreatDanton
September 24th, 2012, 06:14 PM
I thought that's useful lens, but after a while I got annoyed because of the ads (products to buy). Why would I press super+f for searching for files, if I can press just super key?

Luckily it's possible to uninstall this lens.

Regards.

vexorian
September 24th, 2012, 07:13 PM
Free OS 4.67 will now give you cancer by default. But it is fine because you can go to terminal and type "~# alakazam est zargo" to disable the feature. Err, why are you complaining? It is a free OS, it is ridiculous to complain about free stuff. It is not like you ever donated your time to promote it. Your work to debug and add code improvements. Or your patience to give users support to it.



I use amazon a lot and I will use the shopping lens, to me it'll be very useful
But is it useful for results to be displayed in the home lens?

Primefalcon
September 24th, 2012, 07:18 PM
But is it useful for results to be displayed in the home lens?
Sure that's to search everything implemented, if you want just apps, type in super+A for just music super+m... you can see the rest of the shortcuts by just pressing and holding the super key

philinux
September 24th, 2012, 07:26 PM
Personally of I want to search Amazon I'll use Firefox .

vexorian
September 24th, 2012, 07:29 PM
Sure that's to search everything implemented, if you want just apps, type in super+A for just music super+m... you can see the rest of the shortcuts by just pressing and holding the super key
You mean that in order to make room for this feature, I will have to add a new key stroke to every of my searches? It sure will make the OS a lot more useful!

The reality is that I will be forced to disable this feature. As long as the default behavior is to make results appear in home and as long as there is no easy way to decide what appears in home and what does not, I will not be able to leave this thing installed.


Mark is being honest here http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1182
Then would you answer what is next. If Mark is right in that the objective of this feature is not to make money. Then it is surely not a desperate priority to push it while it is so young. In the same post Mark acknowledges the feature is full of kinks and not useful in its current state. There are certainly many concerns right now about whether it is consistent with Ubuntu's privacy statements. And honestly, it shouldn't have beeen pushed after feature freeze like this because it is not a core feature. It does not even encrypt the data it sends, so while I may trust Canonical with all my Desktop searches, I wouldn't trust my ISP and all the people involved inbetween the two computers. Considering all that, then I still think it is sane to postpone it to 13.04.

If the intention was to monetize ubuntu through adware, then I would understand the push to implement it so long before its prime time. But Mark has claimed this is not the intention, and let's believe him.

It is as easy to add it as it is to remove it. So if we are going to so happily say "It is easy to remove" then it works both ways. If it was disabled by default it would be easy to add it. So the guys who really think it is useful and an uber priority to be able to search amazon from home tab can just sudo apt-get install unity-lens-shopping. Right?

KiwiNZ
September 24th, 2012, 08:12 PM
If we never tried new features, Linux would still be a command line only pile of rubbish. However, we do have open minded people who are prepared to give change a try and hence Linux and in particular Ubuntu is getting closer to being a viable alternative to Windows or OSX. If we are not prepared to try new things then Linux and Ubuntu should be abandoned and the developers put their skills and efforts into developing for Windows and OSX and receive gratitude by way of healthy deposits in their bank accounts.

If you don't like Lens turn it off or don't down load future editions.

philinux
September 24th, 2012, 08:18 PM
Unfortunately the lens isn't a lens like we've got used too. As a stand alone lens ok I'm fine with that but not spoiling my home in dash

xedi
September 24th, 2012, 09:34 PM
If we never tried new features, Linux would still be a command line only pile of rubbish. However, we do have open minded people who are prepared to give change a try and hence Linux and in particular Ubuntu is getting closer to being a viable alternative to Windows or OSX. If we are not prepared to try new things then Linux and Ubuntu should be abandoned and the developers put their skills and efforts into developing for Windows and OSX and receive gratitude by way of healthy deposits in their bank accounts.

If you don't like Lens turn it off or don't down load future editions.


I agree with you that there is lots of non-constructive whining and that there are people who should be more open-minded about change but I see here lots of reasonable constructive worries and just accepting every change is as unhelpful as complaining about every change.

yanom
September 24th, 2012, 11:18 PM
-snip-
meant to post that as a new thread

Primefalcon
September 25th, 2012, 01:08 AM
If we never tried new features, Linux would still be a command line only pile of rubbish. However, we do have open minded people who are prepared to give change a try and hence Linux and in particular Ubuntu is getting closer to being a viable alternative to Windows or OSX. If we are not prepared to try new things then Linux and Ubuntu should be abandoned and the developers put their skills and efforts into developing for Windows and OSX and receive gratitude by way of healthy deposits in their bank accounts.

If you don't like Lens turn it off or don't down load future editions.
Some people are just paranoid about anything commercial and hate anything proprietary such as amazon.... kinda surprised a lot of them are using Ubuntu rather than something like GnuSense (oh wait without the proprietary drivers in the kernal good luck having a usable system!) tbh since Canonical do need to make money.

I heard a good phrase recently in reply to RMS's attitude... give it up Free Software (gnu) has been forked into Open Source and Gnu/Linux has been forked into.... Linux and we now have a 5th freedom..... choice!... YAY!

And I will take steam and I will take Amazon! gimme gimme gimme.. wish we had netflix and audible :( oh well time will tell!

vexorian
September 25th, 2012, 01:11 AM
I agree with you that there is lots of non-constructive whining and that there are people who should be more open-minded about change but I see here lots of reasonable constructive worries and just accepting every change is as unhelpful as complaining about every change.
I am a guy who used gnome 2 for 7 years. Then gave unity a chance and I am now using it. This wouldn't worry me if I didn't like unity.

But everyone feel free to typecast opposition to this feature into same as previous opposition. There is no easier way to show that you are not one of those "paranoid" floss users than to group all the people you disagree with in the same team.

Anyway, Canonical removed bug #1054776. That tells us how much they care about this. Great.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/unity-lens-shopping/+bug/1054776. I recommend ubuntu forums to follow the example and close this thread.

yanom
September 25th, 2012, 01:15 AM
Anyway, Canonical removed bug #1054776. That tells us how much they care about this. Great.

now that's a serious issue. Putting in controversial features is one thing, but trying to shut down the debate like that is another.

vexorian
September 25th, 2012, 01:47 AM
It is back. Edit: It was a false alarm, the guy who hid the bug does not seem to be any important figure. Quite shocking that any launchpad user is apparently able to hide bug reports and remove subscribers from a bug?

There has been this bickering between people with power access in launchpad. Constantly marking the bug as invalid or opinion and then someone comes and marks it as confirmed again. The idea about setting visibility to hidden was a new one, but someone else marked it as visible again.

Primefalcon
September 25th, 2012, 02:49 AM
It is back. Edit: It was a false alarm, the guy who hid the bug does not seem to be any important figure. Quite shocking that any launchpad user is apparently able to hide bug reports and remove subscribers from a bug?

There has been this bickering between people with power access in launchpad. Constantly marking the bug as invalid or opinion and then someone comes and marks it as confirmed again. The idea about setting visibility to hidden was a new one, but someone else marked it as visible again.
Well... I am kinda on whoever's side did that but I am not a canonical employee so I am not going to comment on that "bug" but shouldn't that have been put under idea's, bugs are for well...bugs.... not arguing about features or future directions

vexorian
September 25th, 2012, 02:51 AM
It is a bug and security issue that it does remote searches in the home lens. It is behaviour that was not present before. 12.04.1 includes remote searches in some lenses, but they do not appear in the home lens. So...

KiwiNZ
September 25th, 2012, 03:32 AM
It is a bug and security issue that it does remote searches in the home lens. It is behaviour that was not present before. 12.04.1 includes remote searches in some lenses, but they do not appear in the home lens. So...

It is doing the behaviour by design, therefore it is not a Bug and should not be recorded as such.

Gone fishing
September 25th, 2012, 04:02 AM
I think it is wrong to characterize this debate as about features and those opposed to the integration of the shopping lens with the home lens as being opposed to a new feature. I think those opposed to this are concerned about data not features. Certainly we have had lot of posts, in the past opposed to Unity because the members did not like the features etc of Unity. I personally was not one of them Unity looks like innovation to me and generally I think it is moving in the right direction. However, this is different and not analogous to the Unity debate.

What concerns me about this is information about me and how I use my computer is being submitted to a third party. I don't want how many times I open a terminal or search for an app etc - how I use my computer - sent to a third party. Granted I'm also not sure I want personalized adds either - I don't want Ubuntu morphing into Gator. However, this is a lesser concern.

If the amazon data was pulled down locally and the search done locally I would have no issue with this feature (at least in principle) my issue is not with the feature its with the transmission of data concerning me. I also have no issue with Canonical trying to make some money, developing Ubuntu costs and if Canonical makes money more can be invested in Ubuntu.

I not concerned with features I'm concerned with my privacy and my security.

cariboo907
September 25th, 2012, 04:12 AM
It is a bug and security issue that it does remote searches in the home lens. It is behaviour that was not present before. 12.04.1 includes remote searches in some lenses, but they do not appear in the home lens. So...

Please show us how this is a security problem, and not just a privacy issue.

Primefalcon
September 25th, 2012, 04:38 AM
Please show us how this is a security problem, and not just a privacy issue.
considering amazon doesn't get anything unless you click on it.... I wouldn't even say its a privacy issue tbh....

Gone fishing
September 25th, 2012, 05:28 AM
considering amazon doesn't get anything unless you click on it.... I wouldn't even say its a privacy issue tbh....

It's a privacy issue if your personal data (in this case your use of the Dash or HUD) is sent to a third party, more so if this information can be traced back to you (personal IP address) and more so still if this information is collected in a database. Who has access to this data? Do we trust Canonical? What are it's policies? What are it's internal security auditing polices? etc.


Please show us how this is a security problem, and not just a privacy issue.

As the data is unencrypted it is a security issue. Moreover if the data is collected and not anonymised and then stored in database how secure that database is and who has access to it becomes a security issue.

KiwiNZ
September 25th, 2012, 05:33 AM
I have no privacy or security worries with it.

fontis
September 25th, 2012, 05:37 AM
Yeah, but how many people install a distro and leave everything at the defaults? I certainly don't. I don't expect any distro to come just like I want it by default.

I will never understand how so many people can get a totally free ($0.00) operating system and then complain that it doesn't come just like they want it out of the box.

I'm not disagreeing that it should be opt-in instead of opt-out. But, sheesh, run sudo apt-get remove unity-lens-shopping or whine and wring your hands, people. As they say, "Linux is about choice." ;)


Err...I thought the plan here was to make Ubuntu more of a mainstream OS instead of a typical Linux distro?
You dont see OSX or Windows users fundamentally change their OS backend right after they install it. Installing different apps or changing your wallpaper are fine "polishing" moves you could be expected to do after installing - not fiddling with removing "default features".

lol. Sometimes I truly wonder if the joke is really on us. I mean, people on these boards more often than not bash Apple users for being fanatics who adhere to every change and decision Apple goes with and then at the same time when something like this happens the mere critique of the decision makes you look like an outcast for defying and arguing over something free.

I don't complain about the fact that the OS doesn't come "just as I want it" nor do I expect it to. But as a user I don't expect to be forced to turn off and uninstall every other default feature because it's somehow intrusive and not something I use. The problem isn't the feature itself, the problem is the way it is being implemented. Everyone is arguing about the choice!

It is NOT a separate lens, it is NOT "opt-in". It's right there in your face, by default. The reason is simple too. I bet Canonical knows that the majority of the "newbies" who come to Ubuntu won't know how to turn it off, so the feature gets stuck on there (which is why it probably isn't "opt-in") whilst the rest of the people who dislike it will have to pull down a terminal to get rid of it.

Honestly, if I wanted to use a terminal for something as rudimentary as this, I would have just gone Gentoo, Arch or something else.

There are valid concerns from the backbone of the users here, please do not ridicule them. Not everyone has readily access to Amazon therefore Amazon ads are not just only intrusive and annoying, but absolutely useless because some people live "out of it's scope". What about us?

malspa
September 25th, 2012, 06:23 AM
There are valid concerns from the backbone of the users here, please do not ridicule them.

Sorry, folks. It just seems like, for as long as Ubuntu has been out there, Canonical is always coming up with something that gets tons of people all freaked out. Happens over and over again.

I still use Ubuntu, because in the end, I can take what gets put out there and make it work for me here. If I have to tweak something, no big deal. It ends up working out. If it ever doesn't, I won't use Ubuntu, plain and simple.

Six months or year from now, it'll be something else. Anyone who's been using Ubuntu for awhile should know that. Folks will be up in arms again, complaining about users not being listened to, same old song and dance.

Not trying to ridicule anyone, just laying it out there like I see it, and like I've been seeing it for a long time now. If Ubuntu works for you, cool. If it doesn't, oh well, plenty of other nice choices out there, no reason at all to be tied down to any one distro.

vasa1
September 25th, 2012, 06:54 AM
Err...I thought the plan here was to make Ubuntu more of a mainstream OS instead of a typical Linux distro?
You dont see OSX or Windows users fundamentally change their OS backend right after they install it. ...
Why the comparison to other operating systems and their users? Why should Ubuntu be restricted to what others have already done? Why the orthodoxy? The times, they are a changin'.

Gone fishing
September 25th, 2012, 07:30 AM
I have no privacy or security worries with it.

Would you feel differently if your search for say VPN was going through a government controlled ISP unencrypted?

vasa1
September 25th, 2012, 07:42 AM
Would you feel differently if your search for say VPN was going through a government controlled ISP unencrypted?
Let's just assume that people such as freedom fighters or activists will be knowledgeable in covering their tracks.

KiwiNZ
September 25th, 2012, 07:54 AM
Would you feel differently if your search for say VPN was going through a government controlled ISP unencrypted?

Yes

ZarathustraDK
September 25th, 2012, 07:58 AM
I just don't get why they'd mix search-results of different "families". If you're looking for an installed/not installed app, sure, show both, why on earth would you shove some obscure, physical "pay-for" product into the mix?

You might as well also show the man-pages that contain words that match your query, what your query means in swahili, when your query was first mentioned in the history of man, and what molecular components your query is made of if it's a thing.

There is a reason why Google has separate sections for search, shopping, translations etc. It's because those things are distinctly unrelated to each other at a basic level; you don't shop for translations, you use a translator; you don't shop for information, you search for it; you don't search for shopping on the net, you (basically) use a database dedicated to the category of products that you want.

I can't find any other reason for implementing this "feature" than that it's a really bad (bad as in ineffective) attempt at generating revenue off misclicks, and praying to the off-chance that people happen to be interested in a product that is , only by letters, related to the app or document they're searching for.

Just a make a dedicated, separated product-search. If you want to make money off of affiliate programs, then at least cater to the people who's actually looking for products. I mean, would you rely on a lens to provide you with information that, in the end, would imply you forking over money based on it? Or would you use a dedicated search-engine tailored for that specific purpose?

vasa1
September 25th, 2012, 08:08 AM
Why not let the "market" decide?

Gone fishing
September 25th, 2012, 08:45 AM
Yes

Is that because you live in a country with freedoms and the rule of law? Not all Ubuntu users are so lucky.


Let's just assume that people such as freedom fighters or activists will be knowledgeable in covering their tracks.

You don't need to be an activist or a freedom fighter to not want to be observed.

KiwiNZ
September 25th, 2012, 08:52 AM
I want avoid the political prohibition, I have no issue with Government agencies my background assures me of this.

rai4shu2
September 25th, 2012, 11:26 AM
If anyone spied on me, they'd soon die of boredom. I say, have all the data you want, losers.

That said, I am still using Xfce. :)

I can't help but notice when I do a search on Ubuntu.com how it returns results in a folder called "google-appliance". Here's a thought: how about a nice big search on Ubuntu.com that finds whatever we want?

Wim Sturkenboom
September 25th, 2012, 12:59 PM
I'm sure it will all go away if everybody buys a service contract from Canonical :D

tjeremiah
September 25th, 2012, 02:07 PM
The top posts on Reddit and Omg!Ubuntu are pretty good indications.

OmgUbuntu users complain and troll a lot.

As for this feature, I like it and I think people are once again going crazy over a change. Saying things like typing in "sh" and shoes come up or in that Omg article where dishwasher results come up, as far as I've seen, that isnt true. Whenever I type something I either get music or a movie release. (speaking of music, can the video lens be updated to show Youtube music videos from the site?):guitar:

Like I said, I like the feature but many will continue to complain. Instead of getting rid of it altogether, it should be an option when you first install Ubuntu. Almost like the 3rd party codecs. This will get rid of a lot of headaches.

vexorian
September 25th, 2012, 02:59 PM
Since we are operating on the premise that typing an apt-get line is easy. Then those who actually think this is a useful feature can easily type apt-get install unity-lens-shopping.

In fact, it would be easier for them as they would probably be able to find it in the software center. As they really want Amazon to be the center of their ubuntu experience, I guess that the first thing they will do after installing ubuntu is open software center and type "Amazon" in the search thing.


I have no privacy or security worries with it.
Oh, well, since you don't have issues with it it is definitely not a bug then o_O.

It sends information to Canonical's servers. It does it unencrypted. Sounds like a security issue yet? If a ubuntu user somewhere in the desert looked for the file "rebelion plans". That information could possibly be caught by plenty of computers between the user and canonical.

There has been a migration towards Linux among users in those areas because the governments have been very effective at spying them and making windows trojans.

The searches do not concern me, I doubt anyone would do much against me after finding out I keep playing videos and running "MyU". But that does not mean that at the moment it is not a security bug. It would be like saying that the Java vulnerability from a few weeks back is not an issue because I don't use Java anyway.

edit: Actually, I wonder if a Hollywood giant intercepting network traffic could get advantage by learning you keep searching for their videos.

Regarding bugs, Mark claims that by design it only communicates with Canonical ervers and not with Amazon. Yet using wireshark you can tell there is communication with Amazon when you use the shark. This disagreement between implementation and design sounds like a bug yet?

wojox
September 25th, 2012, 03:13 PM
Since we are operating on the premise that typing an apt-get line is easy. Then those who actually think this is a useful feature can easily type apt-get install unity-lens-shopping.

All the applications Ubuntu installs by default, why would they leave out one that generates income for them?

vexorian
September 25th, 2012, 03:17 PM
Besides of operating on the premise that it is easy to install or uninstall, we are also operating on the premise that it is not a money making scheme and it is just a {little change} that we are complaining about just like any other little change.

Then I'd say it is completely fine and possible to leave it out at least till 13.04 so that there is more work on it before making it into default. Fix the real breaker bugs (Showing shopping suggestions for software that doesn't work in ubuntu. Adding a parental control so that results don't appear if a minor is using (It goes against Amazon's ToS to do searches if you are underage. And also, some of us would like to be able to opt-out of adult-only results). Add a way to easily decide which installed lens go to home and which don't. Make the search data go encrypted to Canonical's servers and make sure Amazon really is not getting any info like Mark says it is not intended to. Etc.

It is not like this feature was supposed to be in 12.10 to begin with. It was pushed after the feature freeze.

Gone fishing
September 25th, 2012, 03:25 PM
I have no issue with Government agencies my background assures me of this.

I think you are right and generally I think conspiracy theories are foolish fantasies. However I’ve worked in Zimbabwe, Mexico, Turkey, Lesotho, New Zealand, United Kingdom, Uganda, and Ukraine. In not all of these places would I trust the government agencies, as a default I want to send as little of my personal data unencrypted and I want to consider what I send. I have no intension of being a freedom fighter I just want to be safe and unobserved.

I think possibly I could be persuaded, that this is a good idea, but I think we need to be very careful about privacy and security issues.

wojox
September 25th, 2012, 03:25 PM
Mark has stated this is not about the money. If it is not then I think it is completely fine and possible to leave it out at least till 13.04 so that there is more work on it before making it into default.

It sounds to me like it's ready for testing. If you don't release it you can't "work on it".

vexorian
September 25th, 2012, 03:30 PM
So, if these issues are not fixed before 12.10 release time, it shouldn't be put in 12.10 release.

But ... it was 'ready for testing' only after the feature freeze. As such it does not belong to the 12.10 release. It is good to have exceptions. But even if you could see an use in these , would you really, really think of this feature as a critical thing that deserves to be fasttracked? It is not like it improves hardware support or performance. People willing to test it can install themselves. Again, we are operating under the premise that such thing is superb easy.


I think you are right and generally I think conspiracy theories are foolish fantasies. However I’ve worked in Zimbabwe, Mexico, Turkey, Lesotho, New Zealand, United Kingdom, Uganda, and Ukraine. In not all of these places would I trust the government agencies, as a default I want to send as little of my personal data unencrypted and I want to consider what I send. I have no intension of being a freedom fighter I just want to be safe and unobserved.

I think possibly I could be persuaded, that this is a good idea, but I think we need to be very careful about privacy and security issues.
If they fixed the pricacy and security issues and the very messed up bugs. (And also Canonical really have to update the privacy statement to say that all searches will be sent to their server). Then I would only find it as an annoyance that I need to uninstall. (Amazon is not even useful for me in this country). But ok with it.

But like what I was saying, the issues at this moment are too big and it should be postponed to 13.04. We delayed Nautilus 3.6 for much less (and strangely it was finished long before the feature freeze).

cariboo907
September 25th, 2012, 05:02 PM
@vexorian, I'm not sure if you understand how the Ubuntu release cycle works, the releases that most people should use are the LTS releases, The interim release are meant to try new things out that may be included in the next LTS release, and as such many things may be broken at release time. As Mark said in his blog post, this six month cycle is almost over, and in a few short weeks, we'll be ready to start a new one.

BigSilly
September 25th, 2012, 05:49 PM
@vexorian, I'm not sure if you understand how the Ubuntu release cycle works, the releases that most people should use are the LTS releases, The interim release are meant to try new things out that may be included in the next LTS release...

Is this really how it works? I hear this a lot, but I'm not convinced this is the deal.

To me, the LTS releases are simply normal releases that get longer support. They are no more or less stable than regular releases. They will inevitably become more stable (I suppose) over time as they enjoy a longer period of updates. But as far as trying out new things or being more stable in general terms, I see them as being no different to any of the 6 month releases. They are good for partners and vendors, and users who don't enjoy updating regularly.

But I don't see "interim" releases as being steps to LTS's. Maybe that's a useful way for home users to think of them, but I don't think it's necessarily the truth.

Wim Sturkenboom
September 25th, 2012, 06:39 PM
@BigSilly

I'm only using LTS versions, so can't judge non-LTS releases. But how much difference is there between 11.10 and 12.04? If the answer is 'minimal', 11.10 was the final testfield for 12.04. If the answer is 'significant', then you're right.

Primefalcon
September 25th, 2012, 06:55 PM
Do we trust Canonical? What are it's policies? What are it's internal security auditing polices? etc.
If you don't trust Canonical don't use Ubuntu, Simple, all updates are pushed to Ubuntu as root hence Canonical themselves have root access to your computer... hence Shuttleworths we have root response...

So guess what.... you already are trusting them if you do updates to your computer? do you?

Really people stop being paranoid and foolish...
And yes if you are using non-LTS releases.... you have no room to complain about Canonical pushing updates to test how they perform..... LTS are their Stable enterprise ready releases..... hence their being LTS releases..... remember why Canonical pushed unity in 11.04.... even though it wasn't ready? to make sure it was stable by 12.04

qamelian
September 25th, 2012, 07:12 PM
If you don't trust Canonical don't use Ubuntu, Simple, all updates are pushed to Ubuntu as root hence Canonical themselves have root access to your computer... hence Shuttleworths we have root response...

So guess what.... you already are trusting them if you do updates to your computer? do you?

Really people stop being paranoid and foolish...
And yes if you are using non-LTS releases.... you have no room to complain about Canonical pushing updates to test how they perform..... LTS are their Stable enterprise ready releases..... hence their being LTS releases..... remember why Canonical pushed unity in 11.04.... even though it wasn't ready? to make sure it was stable by 12.04
I trust Canonical...to a point. But Mark Shuttleworth doesn't get to choose what I trust Canonical with on my PC; I do. You make it sound like it is all black or white, but it isn't.

And users of non-LTS releases have every right to complain if they feel a new feature is sketchy. The LTS releases are no more stable nor important to an average home user than the regular 6-month releases. They might become so eventually due to the longer support cycle but they certainly don't start out that way. In fact, the worst end-user experiences I've had have been on the much-touted LTS releases.

People have a right to question features like this, and for you to call them "paranoid and foolish" is highly insulting.

Primefalcon
September 25th, 2012, 07:15 PM
I trust Canonical...to a point. But Mark Shuttleworth doesn't get to choose what I trust Canonical with on my PC; I do. You make it sound like it is all black or white, but it isn't.

And users of non-LTS releases have every right to complain if they feel a new feature is sketchy. The LTS releases are no more stable nor important to an average home user than the regular 6-month releases. They might become so eventually due to the longer support cycle but they certainly don't start out that way. In fact, the worst end-user experiences I've had have been on the much-touted LTS releases.

People have a right to question features like this, and for you to call them "paranoid and foolish" is highly insulting.
Then wait a few weeks after release to change or even stay on One LTS until support ends... for example stay on 10.04 until next year! then upgrade to 12.04...

if you are an early adopter... don't complain about bugs.... deal with it and report them

josephmills
September 25th, 2012, 07:19 PM
I went though this code to look for loop holes and also looked at the framework that is making this all happen. I also talked to the person that made this scope, and yes it is a scope and not a lens. well at least the tech term should be called scope. at any rate you can look at the api your self it is located

http://productsearch.ubuntu.com/

so what I am seeing here is this.
it (scope) just send a web query, parse(JSON) the results... that's it. Simple as that.

2ndly if ubuntu(canonical) wanted to spy on there user's they would with things like popularity-contest and not search entry's
http://popcon.ubuntu.com/

It seems to me that there is a thin line and Canonical has always and will always (I hope) walk very well.

How can developers know what programs are best to work on and make better. If they have no clue how many times something is being installed?

Bottom line is that if you do not trust what Canonical is doing.
Then just don't use Ubuntu.

There is really no reason at all for some of the concerns that I have seen in this thread. The Code is 100% open source and anyone can look at the code.


But what really makes me think is that most of the people that are saying that this could be a spyware sorta thing. They them-self's are using Facebook, Sony , Windoz , Mac(I phones) ect

maybe fighting the wrong battle here lady's and Gent's

qamelian
September 25th, 2012, 07:26 PM
Then wait a few weeks after release to change or even stay on One LTS until support ends... for example stay on 10.04 until next year! then upgrade to 12.04...

if you are an early adopter... don't complain about bugs.... deal with it and report them
I do report them. If they don't get resolved, I also have a right to complain about them. Being an early adopter has nothing to do with it. Every LTS thus far has been worse out of the gate than the releases preceding it on my assorted hardware.

And none of this has anything to do with the discussion at hand regarding the new lens and any privacy or trust concerns, so I'll say no more about it.

rai4shu2
September 25th, 2012, 07:28 PM
I trust Canonical...to a point. But Mark Shuttleworth doesn't get to choose what I trust Canonical with on my PC; I do. You make it sound like it is all black or white, but it isn't.

And users of non-LTS releases have every right to complain if they feel a new feature is sketchy. The LTS releases are no more stable nor important to an average home user than the regular 6-month releases. They might become so eventually due to the longer support cycle but they certainly don't start out that way. In fact, the worst end-user experiences I've had have been on the much-touted LTS releases.

People have a right to question features like this, and for you to call them "paranoid and foolish" is highly insulting.

The difficulty is that your complaints need to be on firm ground, and this whole trust issue really is the way Mark says it is. He is root on our systems, whether we realize it or not. Everything that goes wrong is (in a way) his fault, which makes trust the vital component in all this. If it weren't, the whole system of authentication would totally break down (because it also is based completely on how much you trust the people who manage the repositories).

It isn't necessarily insulting for people to use labels to describe people outside their groupthink circle. It could be a natural reaction to the perception of a danger outside the chosen subculture. I mean, just look at how people overreacted (both ways) to Unity and Gnome Shell. Pure groupthink there, too.

philinux
September 25th, 2012, 07:44 PM
http://www.iloveubuntu.net/canonicals-senior-engineering-manager-online-services-team-john-lenton-explains-amazon-decision

qamelian
September 25th, 2012, 07:55 PM
The difficulty is that your complaints need to be on firm ground, and this whole trust issue really is the way Mark says it is.
No, it isn't. I can pick and choose which updates to allow. I can pick and choose which software stays on my system and what gets uninstalled. I can choose whether or not to use Ubuntu One and what get synced there. Ubuntu/Canonical/Mark Shuttleworth only get to do what I allow them to do. The whole "we have root" thing is nonsense. They have root when and if we let them.

rai4shu2
September 25th, 2012, 08:01 PM
No, it isn't. I can pick and choose which updates to allow. I can pick and choose which software stays on my system and what gets uninstalled. I can choose whether or not to use Ubuntu One and what get synced there. Ubuntu/Canonical/Mark Shuttleworth only get to do what I allow them to do. The whole "we have root" thing is nonsense. They have root when and if we let them.

I get where you're coming from, and that is how it works in theory. But the reality is that all of this could easily be an illusion and how would we know otherwise? We do not. We trust that it isn't. I could go into detail about exploits and backdoors and rootkits, but suffice it to say that the ability to abuse a system is there. :p

qamelian
September 25th, 2012, 08:10 PM
I get where you're coming from, and that is how it works in theory. But the reality is that all of this could easily be an illusion and how would we know otherwise? We do not. We trust that it isn't. I could go into detail about exploits and backdoors and rootkits, but suffice it to say that the ability to abuse a system is there. :p
The point I'm making stands. We choose when to trust and when not to. I don't trust all of the decisions Canonical makes in regards to Ubuntu. When I don't trust something they want to add to my PC, I make sure it either doesn't get installed, or it get uninstalled in short order. My choices, not Mark Shuttleworth's.

josephmills
September 25th, 2012, 08:10 PM
I get where you're coming from, and that is how it works in theory. But the reality is that all of this could easily be an illusion and how would we know otherwise? We do not. We trust that it isn't. I could go into detail about exploits and backdoors and rootkits, but suffice it to say that the ability to abuse a system is there. :p

No we look at the code are selfs and See what is going on. And if you can not read vala/C/GO then we ask for help.

every thing that comes out of canonical has a licence Header in the source code. We can look at that then see who wrote it then go On IRC and find that person. We can also fil bug reports.

example:


awk '/\/\*/,/\*\//' ~/Desktop/unity-lens-shopping-6.0.0/src/daemon.c


gives us



/* daemon.c generated by valac 0.16.1, the Vala compiler
* generated from daemon.vala, do not modify */
/*
* Copyright (C) 2010 Canonical Ltd
*
* This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
* it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 3 as
* published by the Free Software Foundation.
*
* This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
* but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
* MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
* GNU General Public License for more details.
*
* You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
* along with this program. If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.
*
* Authored by Mikkel Kamstrup Erlandsen <mikkel.kamstrup@canonical.com>
*
*/

vexorian
September 26th, 2012, 12:33 AM
Regarding the analysis of the queries done, they seem to agree with this image:
http://cdn.benjaminkerensa.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/unity-shopping-lens.png

The problem in there is that the client is making direct queries with Amazon to download images and descriptions. This sounds like a bug because Mark has claimed that client does not communicate with Amazon directly. Let's hope it gets fixed.


@vexorian, I'm not sure if you understand how the Ubuntu release cycle works, the releases that most people should use are the LTS releases, The interim release are meant to try new things out that may be included in the next LTS release, and as such many things may be broken at release time. As Mark said in his blog post, this six month cycle is almost over, and in a few short weeks, we'll be ready to start a new one.Sorry but I've been using this thing for long enough to know that this is not so.

Most people use the latest version. ubuntu.com makes sure to suggest you to use those versions. And non-LTS versions are not supposed to be test releases or glorified beta versions. They have their own development cycle and feature freeze. Which, BTW was broken to rush this feature into it. Clearly, this will to test new things was not present at the time they delayed nautilus to 13.04 (Also a non-LTS release anyway, so it is still perfectly fine for it to be used to test this feature, right?).

Ubuntu also is always edgy in their choices for new releases. In reality we have seen a good share of game breaking features in LTS releases. Maybe what you describe is the theory of how things should work in ubuntu's release cycles. But that's certainly not the way it works in practice. But even though ubuntu is always edgy, there is a limit for it. And the shopping lens is in such a poor state that I would consider it in as early of a development phase as wayland is. We are not making wayland the default, not even in non-LTS releases. I really disagree that non-LTS are glorified beta tests, this perception certainly does not match my ubuntu mileage.


If you don't trust Canonical don't use Ubuntu, Simple, a...

(And any other phrase that parrots this argument)

Here's the scoof: I trust Canonical. And that is exactly my issue with this, because this feature is subverting my trust. As opposed to the belief that seems to have been ingrained in so many people's mind, trust is not something that stays forever with a person and it is something that has to be mantained and tested over time.

So, indeed, if I stop trusting Canonical I will stop using ubuntu. "Simple as that". What I don't like about this feature is that it will make me stop trusting Canonical.

But I don't think it has to be like that. The way I see it, there is still plenty of time before 12.10 to make sure that this is not just a misunderstanding and Canonical fixes all of this.

At this moment, the feature in its current state breaks the trust I have in Canonical. a) It sends my searches unencrypted through the vasts holes of the web by default. b) It injects ads into my local searches again, without opt-in. But like I meantioned, it does not have to be this way. They can fix the security issue and make the searches encrypted. They can fix the usability issue and remove them from the home lens by default. And my trust does not have to get lost. But if it is , so be it.


But what really makes me think is that most of the people that are saying that this could be a spyware sorta thing. They them-self's are using Facebook, Sony , Windoz , Mac(I phones) ect



While I appreciate the personal attack based on your own imaginary presumptions. I don't use any of that stuff.

Except for Windoz, which is deservedly jailed in a VitualBox. Funny thing about it though. When I search for files in it, it does not my searches unencrypted to Microsoft's servers so that Amazon ads appear by my Desktop searches. Those windows guys are so strange!

KiwiNZ
September 26th, 2012, 12:58 AM
Closed for review

KiwiNZ
September 26th, 2012, 02:27 AM
After review by staff it has been decided that this thread will remain closed.