There is a scary discussion on the Ubuntu Developers mail list.

[wolfger]

"freedom" ( !=power, by the way)

You're absolutely wrong about that. I'd love to explain why, but that's getting way off topic.

2) It's open source software. The only barrier to doing anything you want to it/with it is your own level of knowledge. No Ubuntu developer can "tyrannize" you by offering a feature which you don't like.

Well, there you go. No dev can tyranize me, because I have power
The devs *can* tyranize Joe Desktop, though, because Joe Desktop doesn't know his CLI from his CIA. Speaking out against loss of freedom doesn't necessarily mean it's *my* freedom that's at stake.

Anyone who can complain about the "tyranny" of Linux developers and still take themselves seriously needs to think really hard about what real tyranny looks like, and then compare the two.

Tyranny is a quality, not a quantity.

[p_quarles]

Tyranny is a quality, not a quantity.

Correct. And I was asking you to think about precisely the qualitative difference between tyranny and an open source software security policy.

[23meg]

From the second post in the discussion:

Our users' collective ability to escape our control is one thing that
keeps us honest. Another of course is our own conscience but I hope
you'll agree that what I'm proposing here is very much that we should
exercise that conscience.

Tyrants aren't known for their willingness to hold open discussions about their policies, or be willing to let those whom they set out to tyrannize escape those policies upfront.

I think this simple fact needs more emphasis: nobody is setting out to lock anyone out of anything in the sense that Microsoft and Apple are locking their users out of certain software and services. People are simply discussing measures to prevent problems that are present today, which will presumably grow at least as fast as Ubuntu grows.

2) It's open source software. The only barrier to doing anything you want to it/with it is your own level of knowledge. No Ubuntu developer can "tyrannize" you by offering a feature which you don't like. You don't even have to be a very advanced user to put together your own customized installation of Ubuntu or whatever other distro you like.

From the first post:

What is of course also necessary is an ability for power users to
specify additional third-parties without any blessing from Ubuntu.
However *this facility must not to be accessible to naive users*.

The line of thinking here is that there should be a facility to enable the user to override the SAFTM (Scary Anti-Freedom Tyranny Mechanism) which is easily discoverable and usable by power users, but out of reach of inexperienced users. In other words, SAFTM's killswitch would be in the hands of the user, not the vendor, and the user wouldn't have to modify source code to get unrestricted functionality.

Microsoft, huh?

[wolfger]

The line of thinking here is that there should be a facility to enable the user to override the SAFTM (Scary Anti-Freedom Tyranny Mechanism) which is easily discoverable and usable by power users, but out of reach of inexperienced users.

That sounds very reasonable to me, a power user... but how does that sound to inexperienced users, which by definition includes everybody who is new to Ubuntu Linux? I can see the forums filling up already with cries of "Ubuntu sucks because it won't let me do X", followed by somebody explaining how to do X, and at that point you've added zero security, and given some noob a bad first impression of the OS, while providing the rest of us a minor inconvenience. That's my take on the situation, at least. I'm gonna shut up and go away now, because I don't think there's anything else to say. Opinions stated.

[23meg]

Nothing you can install on your computer makes me less safe, so go for it!

Malicious software installed by a third party on your computer can send thousands of spam mail per day, without you even knowing about it. Part of the spam you're seeing in your inbox everyday is almost certainly coming from botnets made up by infested Windows machines being used to send spam, without their non-security-conscious owners even knowing about it. The fact that neither your OS vendor, nor you were unable to secure your computer would cost thousands of people valuable time and energy that they could have used for other things than filtering out spam. Come to think of it, it might actually inhibit some of their freedoms.

Just some food for thought.

[aysiu]

I give up. If people want to paranoid and scared about this, they can be paranoid and scared about it. Think your freedom is being taken away somehow. Think that Ubuntu is turning into Microsoft and Apple. Do whatever you want.

If you leave Ubuntu, hopefully you can find something you like better (another distro perhaps).

[James85]

I have recently changed from Microsoft XP to Ubuntu, and I like to install .deb files from websites. Does this mean that Ubuntu will stop me choosing my programs. If so, I thought that Linux was about freedom of choice as well as being free ($).

My friend told me that when Linux distros get taken over by corporations, that they start to become like Microsoft and start trying to control users. This is why he uses Debian, as it is still a community thing.

Is this the case with Ubuntu? Because although i'm new to the Linux scene, I get the Linux philosophy of freedom preached at me on every forum I join. It was the freedom for me to choose my own programs that made me change, as well as the price , and stability.

I like Ubuntu as it is easy to install and use, but I wouldn't like to have a Linux that controls what I can install.

[23meg]

That sounds very reasonable to me, a power user... but how does that sound to inexperienced users, which by definition includes everybody who is new to Ubuntu Linux? I can see the forums filling up already with cries of "Ubuntu sucks because it won't let me do X", followed by somebody explaining how to do X, and at that point you've added zero security, and given some noob a bad first impression of the OS, while providing the rest of us a minor inconvenience.

Such a poor implementation of the idea at hand will never fly in Ubuntu. The Technical Board isn't that naive, and the community isn't that forgiving.

[tehet]

This thread is silly.

I like to install .deb files from websites.

That is generally a bad idea as these are untrusted by definition and may break your system, well intended or not.

Does this mean that Ubuntu will stop me choosing my programs.

No. You can still install whatever benevolentware/malware/whatever by hand using the dpkg command.

[James85]

Ok, thanks. I would prefer to have the choice, even if I do make a mistake and install something bad.

So your saying that Ubuntu has a lot of benevolentware/malware/whatever .deb files on the internet, and the developers just want to protect the users from them.

That's ok I suppose, I just didn't realise that Linux has viruses and trojans like Windows. Or is it just Ubuntu? because nobody has said about this for other distros.

PS: This thread isn't silly for me, I came to Linux for security as well as freedom. I see you've only got 2 beans, are you a new user as well?