Skype ethics and Ubuntu/Canonical: logic fails

[alexan]

I am referring to this page (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SkypeEthics)


now...

if you go in the Software Center > Canonical's partner > what do you find?

Skype.



I am the only one to spot some un-logic (illogic) there?

[sisco311]

Canonical's partner is a Third-Party repository. It's neither officially supported nor maintained by the community.

[Paqman]

I am the only one to spot some un-logic (illogic) there?

Which bit do you reckon is illogical? It's in the partner repo.

[Evil-Ernie]

I think I know where Alexan is coming from here, but because Skype is in the 3rd party repository its almost like saying that Cannonical admit that Skype exists and people may want to use it in Ubuntu but they dont offer support for it.

Remember if Ubuntu is going to be used by the big wide world it will need companies to develop software for it so for Cannonical to restrict 3rd party software developers would compare to the way Apple block Flash simply because they wont play ball with Mr Jobs...

[Johnsie]

It doesn't make any sense for Skype to open their code up. They already have a more successful, better quality and more widely used platform than any of the open source packages listed there. Proof that open source is not always better.

[Paqman]

its almost like saying that Cannonical admit that Skype exists and people may want to use it in Ubuntu but they dont offer support for it.

It's not almost like. It's exactly like that.

[grahammechanical]

Let us not confuse Ubuntu with Cannonical. They are different entities. It is not impossible for Cannonical to produce its own closed source software which it may or may not distribute without charge. It is a commercial company after all.

No one can claim that Ubuntu has not informed them about the situation with Skype. Ubuntu is Open Source, and all that, but with user choice. I think that this is a good thing.

I have a friend in Russia. He has Windows on his machine. He has not accepted my invitation and recommendation to use Ubuntu. He has Skype installed. He wants to talk to me. I want to talk to him without the cost of a telephone call. So, I am thankful that I was able to download Skype through the Ubuntu Software Centre. Otherwise he would have to download a Windows version of an Open Source program. But he already has Skype.

Regards.

[JustinR]

It doesn't make any sense for Skype to open their code up. They already have a more successful, better quality and more widely used platform than any of the open source packages listed there. Proof that open source is not always better.

It wasn't saying open source was needed to make Skype better - but so people could analyze the source code to create newer rival applications.

[NightwishFan]

I do not mind proprietary software, I just generally do not like relying on it. Skype is a software I am glad to have available even if I only make mild use of it. I can control it's inclusion or removal.

[Evil-Ernie]

I have Skype too for people I know that use it on non-linux machines. Its still free to download and I am not expected to buy credit or anything like that to use it so I don't see a problem with using it.

[czr114]

It doesn't make any sense for Skype to open their code up. They already have a more successful, better quality and more widely used platform than any of the open source packages listed there. Proof that open source is not always better.
There's no way to verify security and privacy because the code isn't open. That makes the application a failure from a FOSS perspective.

What Skype has that the other clients don't is a glitzier interface and a larger userbase, or in other terms, a combination of cosmetics and bandwagon appeal.

Skype makes money selling credits, not running a free chat service. Opening up the protocol brings more people into the network, making the official Skype client more useful for paying customers.

Canonical made the right call by refusing to endorse a service whose privacy, security, and commitment to community is suspect.

[KiwiNZ]

I see no reason not to support Skype. Not supporting popular applications is self defeating and an example of what holds Linux on the desktop back, never ceases to amaze and perplex me.

[czr114]

I see no reason not to support Skype. Not supporting popular applications is self defeating and an example of what holds Linux on the desktop back, never ceases to amaze and perplex me.

Skype has been full of nasty surprises, from reading peoples BIOSes and hardware without informed consent, to being a vector for censorship in China, to not telling us exactly what it's doing to safeguard confidentiality and privacy, to not patching network-accessible vulnerabilities quickly enough. Skype is a prime example of what's wrong with closed source software.

Skype is available. "Support" can be a matter of semantics. There's good reason to not issue a recommendation or endorsement of something full of nasty surprises we can't evaluate. Too tight of an integration, or something which could be construed as a recommendation, tarnishes the Ubuntu brand by lending credence to an application which shares none of the community or open values.

[KiwiNZ]

A program that checks the hardware configuration ... shocking.

[czr114]

Maybe you don't mind your hardware specific identifiers being shipped out and databased without your knowledge or informed consent, but there's no need to marginalize people who do.

That behavior was completely unacceptable by standards of openness and respect for the userbase.

[KiwiNZ]

Of course they are intensely interested in categorizing and cataloging all the users individual identifications, activities, nuances and locations. They have a huge team dedicated to this.

Really if people are that concerned they really need to reconsider if they wish to use PC's at all. Far more monitoring is done else where in life eg when you walk down main street to your hole in the wall to get some cash and make on EFTPOS purchase, you are photographed, electronically tracked recorded , catalogued, surveyed...............

[Dragonbite]

It's inclusion in the Software Center even though they say it is not part of Ubuntu does sound counter-logic.

Understandably Skype, being currently closed source (didn't they announce they were open sourcing the client a while back?) means users are at the mercy of the Skype commanders as to what goes on behind the scenes. Same with NVidia, ATI and Broadcomm drivers as well as Flash; there are alternatives but most go with the closed-source versions.

Unfortunately, Skype is much more used than Ekiga or other alternatives.

The FOSS side doesn't want to promote or support it in any way, over the current FOSS application with similar capabilities. That's understandable and I too would like to see an open source version or alternative largely adopted.

On the other hand, since Ubuntu is going after the larger, mass market then some provisions like this are necessary as they have to cater somewhat to the "unwashed masses" and bend on some stances to be relevant in this marketplace. Doesn't mean I like it, but I can see the reasoning behind it and support them as this is utilized for them to achieve their goal.

I have Skype, and I use it because that's what the people I am going to talk with use and there is more resistance by them to change than with myself so I'm pretty much forced to use Skype if I want to video-conference with them.

[czr114]

Of course they are intensely interested in categorizing and cataloging all the users individual identifications, activities, nuances and locations. They have a huge team dedicated to this.

Really if people are that concerned they really need to reconsider if they wish to use PC's at all. Far more monitoring is done else where in life eg when you walk down main street to your hole in the wall to get some cash and make on EFTPOS purchase, you are photographed, electronically tracked recorded , catalogued, surveyed...............

Let those who want to do this OPT-IN to doing so.

An operating system and community dedicated to openness, user empowerment, and freedom shouldn't be aiding and abetting assaults on privacy and user control by doing anything which could be construed as a recommendation or endorsement.

The Ubuntu platform is open. Users may choose to install Skype. Nobody here is discussing taking that user freedom away.

The question is whether Canonical should be featuring Skype in a way which might herd new users to it instead of the open alternatives more in line with community principles.

The solution to privacy problems is to take back privacy one step at a time in increments each individual is comfortable with. Simply giving in to the Skypes, advertisers, and Facebooks of the world is defeatist.

Ignoring privacy violations normalizes them and submerges the problem by diminishing awareness.

There is a certain utility in a user being able to trust the software in official repos featuring official support. By keeping the official channels clean, trustworthy, and free of things which work against user interests, everyone can take comfort in software quality and not have to do extensive due diligence before installing an application - because codes of ethics and community screeners have already done that before green lighting the application.

[KiwiNZ]

By not featuring Ubuntu will be arrogantly saying "we know best for the user" and as such we will make some decisions for you.

I say , don't insult the customer, put in the main repositories and allow the customer the "FREEDOM OF CHOICE" to install or not without having to seek it out.

[NightwishFan]

The main repository is for officially supported open source software I believe. Other software such as non-free firmware goes in the partner or restricted repositories. I like the way it is set up now.

[czr114]

By not featuring Ubuntu will be arrogantly saying "we know best for the user" and as such we will make some decisions for you.

Not true. Users are still free to install Skype. Nobody's making a decision for users by refusing to put the Ubuntu brand behind Skype, and instead requiring users to get a .deb from skype.com.

Not featuring it is a lack of endorsement, not an arrogant demand that everyone run systems the same way.

Nobody here is suggesting Skype be driven away or shunned. It's simply a mistake to put the Ubuntu brand behind a closed, intrusive, and questionable application the same way the open Ubuntu brand vouches for the quality and benevolence of open applications in the main repos.



I say , don't insult the customer, put in the main repositories and allow the customer the "FREEDOM OF CHOICE" to install or not without having to seek it out.

Inclusion in the main repositories is an endorsement. Putting Skype on the same footing with Empathy or Pidgin sends the wrong message.

Those clients are open and empower users. They're based on a radically different form of thinking than the intrusive, advertising-laden clients they replace.

What's next, blockbox DRM? The GATOR toolbar? Many users want and install those things, too, even those who know the drawbacks, but it doesn't mean they ought to be endorsed by an open OS built on a specific philosophy.

Ubuntu and GNU/Linux are about more than being Windows we don't have to pay for. Developers freely give their time and expertise to empower users through openness; it's about more than saving people a buck.

There's a powerful purpose in having the main repos be entirely trustworthy and benevolent - it means users need not worry about anything in them acting against users or in bad faith. Users can still venture outside of the main repos when they're willing to take a chance or make a tradeoff, but that is a conscious choice to leave an open ecosystem.

Community-endorsed repos are a powerful tool to protect novice users from problems which aren't readily apparent. They're also a powerful tool to save power users the time of having to investigate the benevolence of software they intend to install, as the community has already done that prior to sanctioning the application.

This is more than an ideological objection to Flash, an unfree driver, or an encumbered codec. Skype's problems can impact users in a very real way.

[Dragonbite]

Don't forget ubuntu-restricted-extras too!

[NightwishFan]

Some of the "restricted extras" are open source just potentially violate patents in some countries.

[kvant]

Alexan, I suggest you take a look at Fedora, they have extremely clean and efficient policy regarding non-free and especially software with bad reputation among some people (like Skype).

There are a few downsides to Fedora (which got me back to Ubuntu, but that can change fast too), but take a look if you're not already familiar with it :)

[kvant]

I see no reason not to support Skype. Not supporting popular applications is self defeating and an example of what holds Linux on the desktop back, never ceases to amaze and perplex me.

You should learn more about free software principles and why do many people like them and try to stick to them as much as they can. That way it would stop to perplex you. Those people have a different vision of GNU/Linux than you. They don't see it as a better Windows than Windows, but as something which is more... well, free!

[KiwiNZ]

You should learn more about free software principles and why do many people like them and try to stick to them as much as they can. That way it would stop to perplex you. Those people have a different vision of GNU/Linux than you. They don't see it as a better Windows than Windows, but as something which is more... well, free!

Errrrrr I have been doing this for a very long time. To be precise the mid 90's. I very much know the Free software principles. Does not mean I agree and have to to agree with them all, after all is that not what freedom is all about, freedom to agree or disagree?

[kvant]

Errrrrr I have been doing this for a very long time. To be precise the mid 90's. I very much know the Free software principles. Does not mean I agree and have to to agree with them all, after all is that not what freedom is all about, freedom to agree or disagree?

Of couse that you can disagree, but you left the impression of a person that doesn't understand those that see value in free (as in speach) software. You took an exclusive position. I'm always trying to keep in mind that there are two "schools of thought" present here in Ubuntu forums, much more than in some other distros' forums, and I'm trying to say that Linux is the child of the free software loving school of thought. I think that it would be, if nothing else, unwise for Ubuntu to forget which branch it's sitting on.

[KiwiNZ]

Of couse that you can disagree, but you left the impression of a person that doesn't understand those that see value in free (as in speach) software. You took an exclusive position. I'm always trying to keep in mind that there are two "schools of thought" present here in Ubuntu forums, much more than in some other distros' forums, and I'm trying to say that Linux is the child of the free software loving school of thought. I think that it would be, if nothing else, unwise for Ubuntu to forget which branch it's sitting on.

Again, I have been involved with Ubuntu and Ubuntu Forums since day one and again I am fully aware of the founding principles. However if Linux and Ubuntu are grow beyond the 1% the mindset has to change and a more open acceptance will need to be adopted.In IT change is the only constant
and if we do not change then we become irrelevant and extinct.

[kvant]

Again, I have been involved with Ubuntu and Ubuntu Forums since day one and again I am fully aware of the founding principles. However if Linux and Ubuntu are grow beyond the 1% the mindset has to change and a more open acceptance will need to be adopted.In IT change is the only constant
and if we do not change then we become irrelevant and extinct.

I understand your position, but you also have to understand that a big number of users will leave Ubuntu then, because they value those values more than having Adobe CS available on Linux etc. I don't want to even start talking about developers who value those values as well.

You'll probably gain much more audience than you'll lose. But, will that be Linux still? I don't think so. It could easily end up being just a bad OS X or Windows clone.

[KiwiNZ]

I understand your position, but you also have to understand that a big number of users will leave Ubuntu then, because they value those values more than having Adobe CS available on Linux etc. I don't want to even start talking about developers who value those values as well.

So you are saying that people will stop using Ubuntu is say Adobe CS, Skype,and for arguments sake MS Office was available for Ubuntu. Not as a default install but available in the main repositories so the customers had a choice.

Now if I understand you right , you are saying that these same believers in freedom, do not believe that these customers should have that freedom choice, but the restricted freedom that they would bestow on them.

[phrostbyte]

The question is, how much money is Canonical making from this? If it makes Canonical more money (which a non-trivial amount goes directly to fund FOSS development) I got no problem with this what so ever.

[kvant]

So you are saying that people will stop using Ubuntu is say Adobe CS, Skype,and for arguments sake MS Office was available for Ubuntu. Not as a default install but available in the main repositories so the customers had a choice.

Now if I understand you right , you are saying that these same believers in freedom, do not believe that these customers should have that freedom choice, but the restricted freedom that they would bestow on them.

Yes to your first question.

About your second question: No. But many people feel like they're a part of Linux, and they won't agree to be a part of a Windows/OS X clone that is proprietary.

Nobody is restricting anything in any Linux distribution, you can install anything you want, but there's a difference between restricting proprietary software and openly endorsing it and encouraging it. I think that Ubuntu is still doing an, let's say, OK job by walking on the border of those two.

Putting proprietary and bad behaving software on par with the free software and making it hard to distinguish would definitely drive me away and many others without a doubt. Question is, does Ubuntu want us to stay? There's a possibility it might not want us, and that's a perfectly acceptable position to take.

If Ubuntu had proprietary software on par with free software (making it hard to distinguish for regular users), I would very probably just erase Ubuntu and either install another distro or go fully to Windows or OS X instead of using something that tries to be just that. I would go for the original proprietary solution :)

It's very late here and I'm very tired, I hope I managed to write a coherent post :)

[Evil-Ernie]

I think we hve lost focus a bit. Skype is freely available on Ubuntu even though its not supported by Cannonical because it is closed source, you can find it on 3rd party applications and even download it from the Skype website. Its not like it has been made delibrately difficult to install.

I agree to hit the mass market there needs to be 3rd party development for the platform and commercial investment in software for Ubuntu/Linux. Of course this needs to be balanced with what makes an open source OS appealing to us in the first place.

[piquat]

So you are saying that people will stop using Ubuntu is say Adobe CS, Skype,and for arguments sake MS Office was available for Ubuntu. Not as a default install but available in the main repositories so the customers had a choice.

I think the users would run TOWARDS it and the devs would run AWAY.

No developers = death of a distro.

[lancest]

Google voice is a nice alternative.
Skype's got real competition in the future.

[jerenept]

I think the users would run TOWARDS it and the devs would run AWAY.

No developers = death of a distro.

No users = death of a distro. that is why I use Sabayon, and not Ubuntu. NVIDIA drivers come preinstalled, it is way more convenient.