Ubuntu and Spyware?

[1clue]

Dude.

Just sit down and think about something. Internet servers cost money to buy, money to maintain and and money to run electricity to.

I just heard a phrase today that makes all kinds of sense: If you use a free online service, you're not the customer. You're the resource being sold to the customer.

SOMETHING is paying for the servers you're using for free. That something is a product of what you do when you use it, or they wouldn't let you use it for free.

That's extremely true for google, gmail, yahoo, facebook, twitter and anything else in the mainstream public eye.

Google has flat out said they have never deleted a search somebody typed in. They claim not to keep IDs of individuals with them in a way they can put a name to, but that's BS. If you have gmail or google+, chances are you also log in with a cookie. They have access to that account and that cookie.

It's also true for Ubuntu forums. The things we post here are searchable and a resource for anyone who wants to look, for starters, and who knows how else these posts might be used? The way a forum is set up, it doesn't have to be the hosts who are using it.

[craig10x]

We aren't disturbed because it's really just a little channel to help Canonical get some revenue to help ubuntu development...much in the same way that many distro's forums (take for example: Linux Mint) show you targeted ads when you are on the forum, which in return they get some revenue back that helps them with development...only difference is it is in the dash search instead of in the forum...Amazon doesn't have any more access as it were, to your computer then those targeted ads have when you browse the mint forum...in fact, far less, actually, since Amazon doesn't actually see your computer at all...

As i previously mentioned, i only turn mine off because i don't like the clutter it adds to my "dash search" not because i am concerned about it (which i am not)...but if i did not send contributions to ubuntu now and then, i think i would probably leave it on as a simple (and cost free) way to throw some revenue back to ubuntu to help it along...

[slw210]

I won't get to indepth on this (hopefully).<snip>

I've made othe comments on some other forums, but to sum it all up, he seems to pick and choose to HIS OWN PROFIT motivated fights.

Where is his diatribe on Android and Google (I have seen some against Chrome OS)? MOST of Google's money comes from selling YOUR information to third parties and riding around in well equipped spy mobiles tapping into wireless connections.

His statements on Android have been to the tune of "not perfect, but better than MS and Apple". Give me a break.

He has been SO MUCH more harsh on Amazon (which makes the bulk of its money on resale) and Canonical it is sickening.

To top that, I'm not even a big lover of Unity or Canonical. BUT, they are not what Stallman portrays them.

[cortman]

I'm sorry I just can't leave this alone.

As far as I can tell, the HURD is the only operating system/distro that Richard Stallman actually likes. And it has so much support that even after well over a decade that page still hasn't changed noticeably, and as far as I can tell has yet to actually release something for people to use. I have yet to meet anyone who has tried to install the HURD. I don't intend to be the first on my block.

While Richard Stallman has basically put Open Source into the public eye, he's done twice as much damage as he's done good because his views on Open Source are so extreme that he scares the $#!+ out of anyone who has a commercial interest. Including a few people who would only use it for work on occasion.

There are a lot of extremely workable free software models out there. RMS and his group are the only ones I can think of who wear three layers of camouflage and need armed guards.

RMS can convince a convention full of Open Source fanatics that commercial software isn't that bad after all.

Wow, I guess this is a rant forum after all.
A couple corrections.

1) HURD is the kernel being developed for the what Stallman refers to as the GNU Operating System (that is, the GNU tools (which includes nearly every stock command line utility) and whatever else has been added to the system (Xorg, a DE/WM, etc). HURD is not its own system, nor is it the only one endorsed by the FSF. You may want to refer to Trisquel, a completely "free" Ubuntu based OS that is the current distro recommended by the FSF.

2) While HURD is not nearly well-developed enough for constant use (IMHO), do know that debian.org offers it as an option instead of Linux for their OS.

3) Stallman was indeed the first to push for free (or as you put it, open source) software as a standard, and before dissing his contributions too much, do know that you owe MUCH of your Ubuntu system to the efforts and activism of Stallman and the FSF. Therefore, I would recommend giving them the benefit of the doubt, or at least chuckling quietly to yourself about some of their "extremism", rather than flinging vitriol.

[monkeybrain20122]

I just don't understand why they can't just make the shopping features opt in. That would satisfy most reasonable critics (e.g the EFF, which is very friendly to Ubuntu despite its criticism) The fact that your local search leaves your computer does have valid privacy ramifications. I don't know how much more money they would make by turning this feature on by default, but is it worth tarnishing Ubuntu's reputation (rightly or wrongly) in the eyes of many users in the long run?

The flip side of the argument that it is easy to turn off is that it is just as easy to turn on, but it is a lot more above board to ask users to turn it on themselves. Afterall Ubuntu users have to install restricted extras and proprietary driver themselves anyway, there is simply no reasonable argument to turn this on by default in terms of user experience, at least for the desktop (for phone may be there is a case to leave it on by default because there are different expectations in terms of convenience and privacy on that platform)

[1clue]

Wow, I guess this is a rant forum after all.
A couple corrections.

1) HURD is the kernel being developed for the what Stallman refers to as the GNU Operating System (that is, the GNU tools (which includes nearly every stock command line utility) and whatever else has been added to the system (Xorg, a DE/WM, etc). HURD is not its own system, nor is it the only one endorsed by the FSF. You may want to refer to Trisquel, a completely "free" Ubuntu based OS that is the current distro recommended by the FSF.

2) While HURD is not nearly well-developed enough for constant use (IMHO), do know that debian.org offers it as an option instead of Linux for their OS.

3) Stallman was indeed the first to push for free (or as you put it, open source) software as a standard, and before dissing his contributions too much, do know that you owe MUCH of your Ubuntu system to the efforts and activism of Stallman and the FSF. Therefore, I would recommend giving them the benefit of the doubt, or at least chuckling quietly to yourself about some of their "extremism", rather than flinging vitriol.

Yes, it was a rant. Not so much against RMS but against people who read or watch what he says and then "see the light" of his message.

I've been using Linux since about 1996. Don't remember exactly when it was, but I know basic events surrounding the time when I was trying to figure things out.

At one point I was an RMS acolyte too. Then I saw how Linux really works in a commercial environment, and that commercial interests contribute a huge stack of resources toward Open Source.

And then I started actually reading licenses. Not just GPL or LGPL, but FreeBSD, Apache, and a bunch of other ones.

RMS caused Open Source software to escape from government, research and educational institutions. He caused it to be accepted into the back room of corporate IT departments.

Redhat caused Linux to be known to CEOs. I was at IBM at that time, when RedHat made its IPO and later when IBM jumped in with both feet to release code for all their platforms to run Linux. There was a lot of fear of that GPL.

Since then, every company I've worked with has either contributed money toward at least one Open Source project or contributed software as Open Source.

There's no reason for such a toxic license in Open Source. There are healthy, thriving Open Source communities which are based on much different but still very effective licenses.

<soap box>
RMS acolytes need to realize that not everyone feels that all software must be Open Source.

They need to realize that even if they DO feel that way, the real world works in a much different way.

They need to understand just how much commercial interest has driven Open Source.
</soap box>

[64bitiso]

Anything that spies CAN be turned off............................................... ............. **IF** the user knows about the fact that it is snooping, and IF they know how.

This is a lame justification, in the same way that a thief says "If I get arrested, I'll stop stealing" - well DUH.