Ethical Ubuntu

[waster]

There had been some discussion on the ubuntu sounder newsgroup of:

https://wiki.ubuntu.com/EthicalInfo

http://dir.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ubuntu.sounder

The spec is about providing ethical information (or simply URLs for more information) on particular software packages and protocols to give the user an informed choice.

What do Cafe readers think?

[Lux Perpetua]

I respect that Canonical has a clear stance on open and free standards. I admire that, actually. It makes me even more proud to have their product on my computer. However, there is a line here that I feel is being crossed in this wiki article.
The purpose of this spec is to allow the user to make an informed decision, not prevent them from installing or using 'bad' software. The information can be provided in a (relatively) non-judgemental, factual way. It could be provided in info bubbles, additional dialogues, or as a bare minimum, in /usr/share/doc and on this wiki.The graceful way to handle this is to provide this information but make the users ask for it. Put it on your website, not on their computers. Making it accessible is good; making them read it is bad.

I like the fact that Canonical, Ltd., the maker of my operating system, takes its ethics seriously. I equally like the fact that my Ubuntu operating system, as it runs on my computer, is completely and utterly politically, morally, and ethically neutral (at least, to my knowledge). An operating system should be an operating system: it should provide an interface between the user and the computer. It is not a vehicle for ethics. The scope of Ubuntu, the software, is the computer it is installed on and the people who use that computer. It is not the world at large; it is not civil liberties in China. Informing a user that some choice he/she is about to make has some ethical significance is completely out of line because this information is irrelevant to the functioning and use of the computer.

See the difference? Canonical Ltd. = human organization. Ubuntu Linux = operating system. A human organization can, and should, be mindful of its ethics. An operating system should run programs and do it as well as possible. An operating system that pushes any agenda whatsoever (besides facilitating the interaction of a user with his/her computer) clearly crosses the line.

[disturbed1]

Oh god no!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Who can decide what is and what is not ethical and/or moral for all? My opinion is different than yours, and I would never express my ethical nor moral cleansing upon someone else. And as such, I only expect the exact same respect in return. This is just flat out wrong!

[waster]

Users are not made to read anything. One implementation would just give links to the user at the appropriate time. The user then has a choice of following the links, or continuing in ignorance.

If you read the spec, you will see that it suggests providing information or links to information to enable a decision to be made. It is not designed to force other people's ideas on the users, beyond those that have already created Ubuntu as we know it.

[kanem]

Warning about some issues, like the Free vs free issue of mp3 or other codecs may be pushing it (I wouldn't mind, but I can see how others might), afterall, many people don't care about that stuff and just want to play their mp3s/dvds.

But the other examples of how this could be useful are great:


...also reads in the same place that some of his IM networks do not keep his conversations secret. He is informed that Ubuntu offers alternatives, and which networks are private and confidential.

and


Kamal's brother was arrested after his Ubuntu computer was traced by government agencies. he is now being held incommunicado. Kamal wants to tell the world what has happened but has to trust the computer and external protocols he is using.

Absolutely an operating system should be informing it's users of facts that will make their computing experience more enjoyable. I don't see this as a political or moral lesson that Ubuntu is 'inflicting' upon us. It's no more contraversial than a warning about phishing scams when on the net.

[Lux Perpetua]

Users are not made to read anything. One implementation would just give links to the user at the appropriate time. The user then has a choice of following the links, or continuing in ignorance.

If you read the spec, you will see that it suggests providing information or links to information to enable a decision to be made. It is not designed to force other people's ideas on the users, beyond those that have already created Ubuntu as we know it.Even displaying a link is too much. An operating system, on its own, should make no attempt to make the world a better place or to make the user a better person. The only time intercepting installation to provide information to the user might be acceptable is if there were some direct technical issue affecting the software. For example:


Warning about some issues, like the Free vs free issue of mp3 or other codecs may be pushing it (I wouldn't mind, but I can see how others might), afterall, many people don't care about that stuff and just want to play their mp3s/dvds.

But the other examples of how this could be useful are great:



and



Absolutely an operating system should be informing it's users of facts that will make their computing experience more enjoyable. I don't see this as a political or moral lesson that Ubuntu is 'inflicting' upon us. It's no more contraversial than a warning about phishing scams when on the net.
That actually seems okay because you are right: in this case, it is not any kind of "lesson." It is purely pragmatic information that is genuinely useful to users and has a direct bearing on their use of the software. On the other hand, informing users that (say) the companies behind those IM networks engage in anticompetitive practices is unacceptable.

[disturbed1]

Users are not made to read anything. One implementation would just give links to the user at the appropriate time. The user then has a choice of following the links, or continuing in ignorance.

If you read the spec, you will see that it suggests providing information or links to information to enable a decision to be made. It is not designed to force other people's ideas on the users, beyond those that have already created Ubuntu as we know it.
So then we would have to remove KDE and all QT libraries because of Troll Tech, and who they do business with=D>

While your at it, let's make a Jubuntu, Dubuntu, Rubuntu, Chirstbuntu, Catchbuntu, Musbuntu, Budbuntu, to continue with the ethnic and political cleasnsing.


3) Skype has provided confidential IM conversations to the Chinese government leading to the imprisonment of several people
^^ That is the law in China. You should respect other peoples laws and ways. Just because their way of life is not the same as your does not make it incorrect.


It is not a distro's place to become a political entity. The blacklash from something, and I'm sorry to put it this way but, as stupid as this will be huge. Kill it before it breads.


-------------

It's fine to not include package a or package b, but listing reasons such as those is wrong.

[polo_step]

It is not a distro's place to become a political entity.

=D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D>

I have to say that I am so thoroughly, staggeringly sick of that aspect of Ubuntu that I'm about to switch distributions to something that concentrates its attentions where they belong, on the software.

This whole schtick, posturing and sanctimony may work for getting gullible people to do more work for free or something, but it gets pretty cloying after a while.

It's like any minute I expect Bono to show up in an Ubuntu T-shirt (and obligatory goofy $300 shades) and deliver one of his rambling, ham-headed lectures on third-world debt.

Jeeze people, I mean really. :rolleyes:

If you really want to make the world a better place, shut up and fix Linux wireless support.

[DigitalDuality]

d

[RavenOfOdin]

While your at it, let's make a Jubuntu, Dubuntu, Rubuntu, Chirstbuntu, Catchbuntu, Musbuntu, Budbuntu, to continue with the ethnic and political cleasnsing.


No one is talking about ethnic cleansing here, Buckwheat.


=D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D>

I have to say that I am so thoroughly, staggeringly sick of that aspect of Ubuntu that I'm about to switch distributions to something that concentrates its attentions where they belong, on the software.

This whole schtick, posturing and sanctimony may work for getting gullible people to do more work for free or something, but it gets pretty cloying after a while.

It's like any minute I expect Bono to show up in an Ubuntu T-shirt (and obligatory goofy $300 shades) and deliver one of his rambling, ham-headed lectures on third-world debt.

Jeeze people, I mean really. :rolleyes:

If you really want to make the world a better place, shut up and fix Linux wireless support.

Ditto!!

Not only does it look disgusting, it also does an end run around the ideals of Open Source.