Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

EFF Wants Ubuntu To Disable Online Search By Default

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the just-works-vs.-just-works-correctly dept.

Ubuntu 124

sfcrazy writes "Ubuntu 12.10 met with some controversy before and after its launch about the inclusion of Amazon product listings alongside local search results. Now, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has raised concerns around data leaks and Amazon Ads. The EFF has asked Canonical to update Ubuntu so it disables 'Include online search results' by default. 'Users should be able to install Ubuntu and immediately start using it without having to worry about leaking search queries or sending potentially private information to third party companies. Since many users might find this feature useful, consider displaying a dialog the first time a user logs in that asks if they would like to opt-in.'"

cancel ×

124 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Hmmm (-1, Flamebait)

dreamchaser (49529) | about 2 years ago | (#41823581)

How about users just get a clue? Online search is a feature, not a bug. Yes it can 'leak' data, but I would expect most Linux users to know that and make an informed decision.

Still, the default should be a conservative "F NO" (3, Insightful)

e065c8515d206cb0e190 (1785896) | about 2 years ago | (#41823647)

cf title

Re:Still, the default should be a conservative "F (1)

morcego (260031) | about 2 years ago | (#41824185)

There should be NO default.
Show a dialog with no default option, and force the use to choose. No "Next->Next->Finish".

Re:Still, the default should be a conservative "F (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41824557)

Why force the users to choose? That's awful.

The EFF kind of has a point, particularly regarding the fact that anybody can intercept the returned images, which are of course highly correlated to your query terms. If that can't be fixed, then default to no and either:

* Have your dialog, but *do* make it possible to Next->Next->Finish. The key is that Next->Next->Finish leaves you in a secure and private state.
* Have no dialog, and the first couple times you search have an unobtrusive hint on how you could add online search.

Re:Hmmm (1)

Synerg1y (2169962) | about 2 years ago | (#41823707)

The problem is users using the search to try and find something local & then getting a bunch of amazon results alongside their files. Not very Linux like at all.

Re:Hmmm (0, Flamebait)

kthreadd (1558445) | about 2 years ago | (#41823819)

Since when is Ubuntu about Linux?

Re:Hmmm (1)

Seeteufel (1736784) | about 2 years ago | (#41826575)

I guess the answer may be rather that Shuttleworth does not fund EFF operations anymore. The EFF simply jump on board of criticism directed against Canonical. That is a cheap shot. What did the EFF do to stop the Amazon business practices, or to combat their rogue software patents? What did EFF do to advance Linux software?

Re:Hmmm (1)

dimeglio (456244) | about a year ago | (#41829685)

The EFF are the vegans of technology. A little extremist at times but healthy nontheless.

Re:Hmmm (1)

sunderland56 (621843) | about 2 years ago | (#41825503)

The problem is users using the search to try and find something local

The problem is a UI that co-mixes local searches with internet searches.

If you use a normal, non-UI command like 'find' to do local searches, there is no issue.

Re:Hmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41823713)

I would expect most Linux users to know that and make an informed decision.

Yeah. To turn it off.

Re:Hmmm (4, Insightful)

mikeken (907710) | about 2 years ago | (#41823725)

"...but I would expect most Linux users to know that and make an informed decision." Typically true, but it should make a difference that Ubuntu isn't targeting the average Linux user (IMHO). They are targeting everyday users as well by trying to make their interface as easy to use as possible.

Re:Hmmm (1)

dreamchaser (49529) | about 2 years ago | (#41823801)

"...but I would expect most Linux users to know that and make an informed decision."

Typically true, but it should make a difference that Ubuntu isn't targeting the average Linux user (IMHO). They are targeting everyday users as well by trying to make their interface as easy to use as possible.

As much as I'd like to think otherwise, let's be realistic. Very, very few 'everyday users' are installing Linux. They'll use what they get on their Mac or PC.

Re:Hmmm (1)

mikeken (907710) | about 2 years ago | (#41823943)

Right, and I understand that. I'm just saying that Ubuntu is trying to target the everyday user, I don't know if it is successful or not.

Re:Hmmm (4, Interesting)

techno-vampire (666512) | about 2 years ago | (#41824111)

I've always felt that Ubuntu is mostly targeting "Windows refugees," that is, people who want to get away from Windows for one reason or another, but don't want to buy a Mac. Unlike some (most?) Linux distros, Ubuntu tries to make everything as easy as possible for the new user including giving it a default look and feel as close to Windows as it can manage. If, as I've seen mentioned elsewhere, Windows 8 is including on-line searches by default, it makes sense for Ubuntu to do the same on the assumption that this is what most of their newest users expect. I'm not saying that this is the right decision, but then, I don't use Ubuntu so I'm not part of their target market.

Re:Hmmm (2)

Sable Drakon (831800) | about 2 years ago | (#41824315)

Ubuntu doesn't look a whole lot like Windows. If you're looking for a distro that does look very much like Windows, take a look at Mint. If it wasn't for the icons and a few minor retails, they're very similar.

Re:Hmmm (1)

techno-vampire (666512) | about 2 years ago | (#41824493)

Ubuntu doesn't look a whole lot like Windows.

I wouldn't know. I've never used any version of Windows more recent than XP (and only use it to play a few games on at a club I belong to) and I don't use Ubuntu. I do, however, do support for my sister who used Ubuntu until she got tired of fighting with the Unity DE and switched to Xubuntu. As I wrote, that was my impression of Ubuntu and I won't insist on it if you feel like disagreeing.

Re:Hmmm (1)

Sable Drakon (831800) | about 2 years ago | (#41824581)

If you're looking at cosmetics alone, Unity looks more like MacOS X than it does Windows. But feel free to compare screenshots of Ubuntu 12.10, Mint 13, and Windows XP or Vista or 7. You'll see Mint impersonating Windows far more than Ubuntu does.

Re:Hmmm (1)

Smauler (915644) | about a year ago | (#41827559)

I don't think there are many Windows refugees currently. 2000 was ok, XP was a slight improvement. Vista was a disaster* because of being installed on systems not able to cope with it. 7 was basically a success, as far as I can see. We'll wait and see with 8.

I run Windows for games. If steam managed to switch it's catalogue to Linux now, I'd switch now. It's mostly a company problem now, and I hope Steam win, because It'll result in free operating systems in my opinion. Of course, that will be at the cost of DRM everywhere, but I've learnt to accept the less bad DRM as a part of life - I refuse to buy anything with crappy DRM.

That being said - my current uptime is 1826 hours with Vista.

Re:Hmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41824239)

Ubuntu is the biggest, most-used linux desktop-flavor around.
Ubuntu-users ARE average linux users.

Re:Hmmm (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41824573)

I believe you'll find Mint took over the top spot when Ubuntu began pushing Unity on everyone.

Re:Hmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41827331)

[citation needed]

Re:Hmmm (3, Informative)

mister_playboy (1474163) | about a year ago | (#41827899)

He's probably referring to the fact that Mint has been getting more pageviews on DistroWatch than Ubuntu for some time now. I'm certain Ubuntu still has more actual users.

That said, I had a friend inquire about Linux recently and I recommended Mint to them over Ubuntu because of this advertising injection. I use KDE so the Unity thing wasn't a big deal to me, but I can't excuse the ads/infomining. That's not what Linux is about.

Re:Hmmm (1)

helix2301 (1105613) | about a year ago | (#41830811)

Well firefox gets paid for search results Ubuntu is setting up for the same thing they need make money to thats how business works.

Re:Hmmm (5, Interesting)

mynamestolen (2566945) | about 2 years ago | (#41824049)

Linux is being used more and more by "unsophisticated" users like me and the group of elderly people I've helped by installing Lubuntu on their tired old computers. Please don't make assumptions for us about this sort of thing. As I understand it, good programmers (and hopefully that included people who make this decision, shouldn't make such assumptions.

Re:Hmmm (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41824819)

Very nice response. Much nicer than deserved. First off, the snarky "How about users just get a clue? Online search is a feature, not a bug. Yes it can 'leak' data, but I would expect most Linux users to know that and make an informed decision" is typically what I expect from some of the assholes who have been using Linux. They are socially retarded pinheads who's only accomplishment in life was staying up late staining their teeth with Cheetos and Jolt cola figuring out how to use a free distro because they were too poor to buy a copy of Windows or good hardware to run it. They somehow feel superior to others who could give a rat's ass less about which OS they use. "Sophistication" has nothing to do with the OS you use. Kinda like people who buy luxury cars thinking it gives them class. What's that expression about a silk purse? I have been on the fringe of the Linux community since RHL 3 (not RHEL 3) and received nothing but hate and discontent when I was learning. "Read the fucking manual" was all I got. You guys know who you are...

Most advanced OS users know how to configure their OS securely. Some don't. The default inclusion of online search is wrong. You are correct in stating the people who make decisions in what goes in to the code should not make that assumption. The default inclusion of potentially vulnerable software or the default inclusion of features that can be exploited is negligent, plain and simple. MS was wrong in the Windows 2000/IIS debacle and look at the shit storm that started.

My apologies to the Linux users who have tried to make a difference- you are not socially retarded pinheads.

Re:Hmmm (1)

luther349 (645380) | about a year ago | (#41828675)

the move ubuntu have been making are bad at best. unity the first and now ads. lets just hope it never makes it to the a lts in its current form.

Re:Hmmm (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41824129)

How about users just get a clue? Online search is a feature, not a bug. Yes it can 'leak' data, but I would expect most Linux users to know that and make an informed decision.

I would have to say it depends on the specifics of how it is implemented. For example when IE moved from a separate search box to demanding everything be done from a single URL bar there were some keyboard shortcuts that went with.

ctrl-e is supposed to send what you type to your search provider.

ctrl-l is supposed to be a URL but if you don't fully qualify with http it will *still* leak that to your search provider as well. I still find myself accidently doing it even though I know better.

The one ambiguous field is intentionally structured and designed to leak data like a sieve.

If ubuntu is doing anything like this then I think it is fair for EFF to call them out on it. If it is just a case of a dedicated search field that does nothing else but leak data necessary to complete user request then the critisim is not warranted.

Having no experience with the feature in question I will withold judgement.

Re:Hmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41824219)

If you want Linux to have mainstream success, assume your users know nothing about it, which is true for the people you want to start using it.

Re:Hmmm (4, Insightful)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | about 2 years ago | (#41824275)

How about users just get a clue? Online search is a feature, not a bug.

Not when you're trying to search locally.

Re:Hmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41826967)

The thing is most use don't understand the difference between searching online and and searching locally. I tried to explain to my mom the difference and she still really didn't get it. The problem is compounded by the fact that most things people have on their computer they downloaded from the Internet, so at one point they did search the Internet for the file but now they have to search their computer, it is too complicated for most people unfortunately.

Re:Hmmm (3, Insightful)

aaaaaaargh! (1150173) | about 2 years ago | (#41824345)

Users should get a clue? What a charming view on users - I hope you're not a developer.

As a long-term Ubuntu user I have to say that I really want a clear separation between online search and local search. The last thing I want to see when searching through my files is an advertisement by some company. Not even as an opt-in.

(Apart from that general point, it should also be mentioned that Amazon sucks for a variety of good reasons.)

Re:Hmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41824607)

Online search enabled by default is the showstopper bug, how about you get a clue.

Good Advice (5, Insightful)

ohnocitizen (1951674) | about 2 years ago | (#41823669)

Providing users with a clear, easy to change choice up front ought to be the new standard. Maybe some users will want to see sponsored search results (advertising) when they search for photos they took on their vacation to Scotland. Others may prefer to just see the photos they are looking for. Either way, letting the user choose and being honest about what they are choosing, rather than simply having sponsored results appear in a local search, is a much better user experience.

Re:Good Advice (1, Insightful)

RanCossack (1138431) | about 2 years ago | (#41823973)

I'm not sure of the exact term for it, but your example assumes the user is looking for photos of Scotland that they took and have stored on their local drive. What if they want to search for Scotland on the internet? Maybe someone else said something about Scotland, so they type in "Scotland" to look it up on Wikipedia, or to see image results for Scotland from Google. Or, more relevant to the shopping lens, maybe they typed in "kilts" because they want to buy one, not search for pictures of kilts on their local drive -- or to search for an app named "kilt", which is how the original feature worked.

I think that if Ubuntu had debuted Unity with web searches built in to the lens thing, people wouldn't be nearly as surprised and even outraged. It's the change from a purely local search (albeit one with several modules) to one that includes results from Amazon that's made it shocking. Nobody is protesting amazon being included in the search bar in Firefox, for example.

Personally, I'd prefer it if there was a toggle for internet searches in the search bar, down where the privacy notice is now, and add way more useful lenses like the wikipedia one. I'd actually use that.

Re:Good Advice (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41824107)

Actually the Video lens in 12.04 has internet search for video that checks Youtube, Amazon, and some other video hosting sites that can filtered by selection.

Re:Good Advice (5, Insightful)

Belial6 (794905) | about 2 years ago | (#41824337)

Nobody protests Amazon being included in the search bar in Firefox because nobody uses Firefox to search for local data. Local and remote searching should have a good clear line between them. It should take an active effort on the users part to merge them.

Re:Good Advice (1)

Noughmad (1044096) | about 2 years ago | (#41824979)

Nobody protests Amazon being included in the search bar in Firefox because nobody uses Firefox to search for local data. Local and remote searching should have a good clear line between them. It should take an active effort on the users part to merge them.

Is there any reason for this except "this is how we've always done it"?

Re:Good Advice (3, Insightful)

Belial6 (794905) | about 2 years ago | (#41825173)

Of course there is. Having everything you search on submitted to every external site that you do business with is bad. Whether you are looking for local files concerning your birthday, the erotic letter your wife wrote you, or that letter you wrote to the GBLT suicide hotline, it is none of Amazon's business. Ubuntu tapping your searches for Amazon is not significantly different than if ATT tapped your phone line for Amazon.

Re:Good Advice (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | about a year ago | (#41828205)

Question: If Canonical announced tomorrow "We are going broke, either we have the Amazon search or we close our doors" which would you choose? Frankly most of the improvements on usability on the desktop can be traced back to Canonical and like it or not if they go under there is nobody lining up to take their place.All the major corps are spending their budgets on SERVER improvements and frankly couldn't give a rat's ass about the desktop...after all their locked down Windows desktops work just fine for them.

So what do you choose? That is what it ultimately comes down to as TINSTAAFL and somebody has to sink those millions into the desktop if you want it to go anywhere...or would you prefer going back to "Bob's Distro" where its just the same packages with a new theme and a couple of little things switched around, like 2/3rds of the ones on distrowatch?

Re:Good Advice (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year ago | (#41828673)

If Canonical announced tomorrow "We are going broke, either we have the Amazon search or we close our doors" which would you choose?

Buh-bye, Canonical. I will slightly miss your driver integration.

Frankly most of the improvements on usability on the desktop can be traced back to Canonical

Citation needed. There was a working desktop before they were around, and the only thing I have now that I didn't have before them is more eye candy, at the expense of functionality like expecting my computer to run OpenGL programs correctly.

Re:Good Advice (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about a year ago | (#41830671)

Question: If Canonical announced tomorrow "We are going broke, either we have the Amazon search or we close our doors" which would you choose?

Close the fucking doors! Canonical isn't the only one providing distros.

Frankly most of the improvements on usability on the desktop can be traced back to Canonical

Such as? Unity? haven't tried it but I heard it sucked. Gnome improvements? I never liked Gnome. I'm running kubuntu, but if Canonical wnt out of business I'd just switch back to Mandriva. So what useability improvements has Canonical made? Mandiva's installation and setup were more useable back when mandriva was still Mandrake than Ubuntu is now.

That is what it ultimately comes down to as TINSTAAFL and somebody has to sink those millions into the desktop if you want it to go anywhere...or would you prefer going back to "Bob's Distro" where its just the same packages with a new theme and a couple of little things switched around, like 2/3rds of the ones on distrowatch?

You grossly overestimate Canonical's contributions. Most improvements are in fact from Bob, who wants a feature and just writes it and releases it.

Re:Good Advice (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41826851)

Is there any reason for this except "this is how we've always done it"?

I'm surprised you even need to ask this. You seem really out of touch.

Online searches leak private information. Online search inclusion drastically lowers the quality of local searches in large part because online searches are polluted with "shopping information" and local searches are never about shopping. Online searches are usually slower than local searches, Online searches can cause huge delays if the machine is off-line. Online searches contain unsolicited advertising (= propaganda).

In summary there is a vast difference in quality to me between my information and pushed information.

Re:Good Advice (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | about 2 years ago | (#41827029)

Online searches are usually slower than local searches

Are you kidding me?

With an online search, there are servers waiting to perform my search and are optimized to do it. Google throws me 10 results in well under a second.
My local machine is not optimized to do searches of local content, nor do I want it to dedicate the kind of RAM it takes to do fast local searches. My local machine takes longer than a Google search just to get a a set of uncached icons onto the screen because its got to hit the platter.

Re:Good Advice (5, Insightful)

mounthood (993037) | about 2 years ago | (#41824455)

If Canonical had asked "Support Ubuntu by including Amazon searches?" they could have kept the money and the goodwill.

Re:Good Advice (1)

pswPhD (1528411) | about 2 years ago | (#41826025)

I think the problem for Canonical would be that Amazon would pay them more money for "default on" local ad searches, and they do need money for paying (at least some) developers, and for servers and other stuff.

I'll be honest here and say I don't see a problem with it- it is open source and can be easily removed, unlike apps on some mobile operating systems added by the telecoms companies.
Ultimately the money must come from somewhere. For Suse (my main OS) and redhat it mainly comes from server side support contracts; for Canonical it gets some from advertising.

Re:Good Advice (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41826373)

I think the problem for Canonical would be that Amazon would pay them more money for "default on" local ad searches, and they do need money for paying (at least some) developers, and for servers and other stuff.

Mark Shuttleworth is a millionare, and was long before he founded Ubuntu.

He started Thawte, and sold it to VeriSign, making a half billion profit on it.
He started a venture capital company called HBD.

While he is no longer CEO of the Ubuntu foundation, he still has huge ties with the company regarding financing it, and left them quite well off when he did leave.

While of course the only goal of any company, is to make more and more money, one can't say they need money - they have plenty. This is just a grab for even more, at the expense of the foundations original ideals.

Re:Good Advice (1)

LingNoi (1066278) | about 2 years ago | (#41827191)

Canonical is a privately held company. It has no legal obligation to "make more money" as you put it. Where you see this as a money grab others are seeing it as a convenient feature.

Re:Good Advice (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41825157)

Yes, good, nag users about whether they want to see ads or not. Classy way to be shitty.

Re:Good Advice (0)

hairyfeet (841228) | about a year ago | (#41827619)

That won't happen because of one single fact...Canonical needs the money. I mean look at their track record since Shuttleworth said he wouldn't sink more money into Canonical, its been a desperate throwing ideas at the wall hoping to find a way to keep the company afloat. Ubuntu Netbook Edition, Ubuntu Server (remember when Shuttleworth said that Ubuntu "was gonna be for desktops and not servers"? Boy that tune changed quick) Ubuntu selling MP3s through Amazon and now Amazon search.

But I predict Canonical will be joining that long list, Corel and Xandros and Linspire and Mandriva and more I can't even remember off hand, that tried to make a living off of desktop Linux and failed. there is simply no money in Linux desktops and it costs a LOT of money to create and improve Ubuntu so...well you get what you have now, begging on the download page and Amazon search. So long Canonical, it was a nice idea, too bad it just didn't work out..

Windows 8 (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41823681)

Windows 8 interface formerly known as Metro is leaking local searches like a mofo also.
Why should every thing i search locally be shared with the maker of every service and app I subscribe to?
It's batshit insane IMO but at this stage to be expected from the likes of Microsoft, Apple, Google, but Ubuntu?!?!?!!!!!!

Me: "makes me sick motherfucker, how far we done fell"
Shuttleworth: *ahhhhhhhauccccccccccck *Phlew!

http://youtu.be/1wmgghlEagA?t=3m36s

Re:Windows 8 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41825359)

It does? You must be using a different version of Windows 8 than I am because my version only searches the currently selected app in the sidebar. I wish it had a smarter search feature.

Re:Windows 8 (1)

KreAture (105311) | about 2 years ago | (#41825703)

They have lost their virginity.

Now expect them to become slutty overnight.

Honestly (1)

mikeken (907710) | about 2 years ago | (#41823683)

This is how it should have been in the first place. As a user of Ubuntu when I do decide to install 12.10 I would like to be greeted with the option to opt-in rather than having the ability to "opt-out" by changing settings after the install. Personally, I will opt-in just to be able to support Ubuntu in even the smallest way.

I think you misspelled "everybody" (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41823685)

Everybody wants Ubuntu to disable online search.

Useless (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41823737)

Every time I search for "tentacle rape furry herm hentai" I get zero results from Amazon anyway.

Re:Useless (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41823951)

Your search "tentacle rape furry herm hentai" did not match any products.

So true.

Re:Useless (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41824391)

Remove your furry herms and Amazon will provide.

Re:Useless (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41824507)

That's because you misspelled "Futanari".

Re:Useless (5, Informative)

c (8461) | about 2 years ago | (#41824823)

> Every time I search for "tentacle rape furry herm hentai" I get
> zero results from Amazon anyway.

Try amazon.jp...

Ah... I wish I was joking.

Re:Useless (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about a year ago | (#41828687)

I always knew there was something creepy about Dragon Quest.

Re:Useless (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41830047)

Tentacle Fuck Bundle only ¥300 [amazon.co.jp]

So they're going to ask Microsoft next right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41823803)

As the xbox's new search will integrate the web search too.

Hope this works (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41823865)

I hope the EFF keeps up the pressure on Canonical on this. If people want to have on-line search, that's fine, but it should not have been the default. Having a checkbox in the Dash labeled "Enable on-line search" would be fine. Considering how much personal data could be transmitted to third parties there is no reason for this feature to be enabled by default Canonical isn't listening to their users on this one and have been taking a hard line against bug reports against this new feature. Having the EFF on the side of the users might get the attention of the developers.

Re:Hope this works zuku (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41824925)

If the EFF doesn't like it, they can create their own Linux distribution and turn it off by default. Where do they get off thinking they can tell others what to do? Does that mean it is OK for Microsoft to tell the EFF to shut down?
captcha: garters

It all started with Zuckerberg... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41823879)

...saying that privacy is so vintage.

Fact is that if you want to market to the biggest segment of users, you (Canonical) have to forget all these privacy and security concepts.
See what Windows 8 is doing on the same level (user [un-]awareness of any privacy at all), and get how dumb the ecosystem is becoming.
Either accept it or take popcorns and watch the fireworks from outside.
It does not matter how much slashdotters like it or not, the PC/laptop/tablet experience is going to be (even more) a mass product with all pros and cons.

Someone has to pay (2, Informative)

bjourne (1034822) | about 2 years ago | (#41823937)

Developing a Linux distro isn't cheap. Even if they are mostly just assembling free software components, it still costs money to create a reasonably polished user experience. Canonical seem like a decent enough company and have sponsored lots of conferences for example. Back in the day you could request install cd:s from them which they sent you free of charge so that you could give to friends and family. So why not be nice back and let them have some small Amazon affiliate income? If that's what it takes to keep Ubuntu running, it's fine by me.

Re:Someone has to pay (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41824027)

You know you can donate to them, right?

Re:Someone has to pay (3, Interesting)

WaffleMonster (969671) | about 2 years ago | (#41824233)

So why not be nice back and let them have some small Amazon affiliate income? If that's what it takes to keep Ubuntu running, it's fine by me.

I totally agree.

Also Maintaining bash is a lot of work, if sending all ur commands to a small Amazon affiliate is what it takes to keep bash up to date, its fine by me.

Re:Someone has to pay (1)

chargersfan420 (1487195) | about 2 years ago | (#41825167)

I completely disagree. It's not the users' concern where Canonical gets their money. If they offer their distro for free, it is their own problem how they get their funding. If users don't like their product, there are many, many other free distros to choose from.

Besides, they were doing just fine on their previous funding models, which is what other companies like Red Hat do, right? Why do they need more money? Is the support license money well running dry these days? And if that is the case, whose fault is that?

Re:Someone has to pay (1)

metalmonkey (1083851) | about 2 years ago | (#41827467)

Is the EEF jumping on every other manufacture who SELL Windows with similar crapware?
With a free OS it's not so much to for them to ask for some ad revenue, which can be turned off.

Here's a Thought: (0)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 2 years ago | (#41824131)

How about (and I know I'm getting really abstract here, try to stay with me), just a thought... How about you fucking ask us on installation, instead of everyone (and I mean EVERY-FUCKING-ONE, EFF included) acting like we're too gorram stupid to make that decision for ourselves?

Yea, I know - what a far-fetched concept, huh?

Re:Here's a Thought: (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41824307)

OMG that's so innovative. Did you think up that bright idea yourself, or maybe WAS IT IN THE FUCKING SUMMARY?

Re:Here's a Thought: (1)

theripper (123078) | about 2 years ago | (#41824333)

...Since many users might find this feature useful, consider displaying a dialog the first time a user logs in that asks if they would like to opt-in.'

How is this different than the suggestion in the summary to default to no and ask the first time you log in?

Re:Here's a Thought: (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | about 2 years ago | (#41824525)

...Since many users might find this feature useful, consider displaying a dialog the first time a user logs in that asks if they would like to opt-in.'

How is this different than the suggestion in the summary to default to no and ask the first time you log in?

It's different in that first login comes after the installation process.

Not that it's a bad idea - I must've missed that sentence when skimming the summary... rant partially retracted.

Re:Here's a Thought: (1)

theripper (123078) | about 2 years ago | (#41825225)

I wasn't trying to ask for the literal difference...

That said, I prefer the idea of defaulting things like this to something sane and asking you on login if you want to opt-in versus putting more options in the installation process.

EFF's suggestions (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41824183)

What EFF Wants From Ubuntu

Ubuntu is the third most popular desktop operating system, and it's the most popular free software one. Many of EFF's employees run Ubuntu on their own computers. Here is what we would like to see from future versions of Ubuntu.

        Disable "Include online search results" by default. Users should be able to install Ubuntu and immediately start using it without having to worry about leaking search queries or sending potentially private information to third party companies. Since many users might find this feature useful, consider displaying a dialog the first time a user logs in that asks if they would like to opt-in.

        Explain in detail what you do with search queries and IP addresses, how long you store them, and in what circumstances you give them to third parties.

        Make the Search Results tab of the Privacy settings let users toggle on and off specific online search results. Some users might want Amazon products in their search results, but never anything from Facebook.

        We love that Ubuntu is bold enough to break new ground and compete directly with the large proprietary operating systems, but please make sure that you respect your users' privacy and security while you're doing it. Windows and Mac users are used to having their data sent to third parties without their express consent by software companies that are trying to maximize profits for their shareholders. Let's make sure Ubuntu, like the GNU/Linux operating system at its heart, remains an exception to this.

Really if Ubuntu had implemented these suggestions to begin with, they could have avoided this controversy.

Re:EFF's suggestions (1)

mattr (78516) | about 2 years ago | (#41826523)

As a Mac user I can't say I'm used to that. I monitor all firewall requests from my machine. What I can't stand is not knowing what it means to allow Flash or MS Word to autoupdate.

Re:EFF's suggestions (2)

LingNoi (1066278) | about 2 years ago | (#41827215)

Ubuntu is popular, people would find some way to bitch about it regardless.

Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41824339)

the default for windows is to search online too. wheres the EFF on that issue? just because it searches all of online and not just amazon its ok? no. that sounds fucking stupid.

i'm guessing alot of ubuntu users are by default much more familiar with what they are doing. but windows users... hell... if its default on install it stays that way forever most likely.

so when can i expect to hear about the EFF slamming microsoft over doing the EXACT SAME THING....

Re:Why? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41824445)

From TFA:

"Windows and Mac users are used to having their data sent to third parties without their express consent by software companies that are trying to maximize profits for their shareholders."

C'mon, this is the EFF. Of course they would be critical of Microsoft, Apple, Google, et al. for leaking, or downright giving up users' data to third party entities. The article is hardly a slam, though...

Let's have a popup for every configurable option! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41824711)

This way the user is forced to decide whether they should or not, for everything. Make the 'No' button for Amazon 10x the size of the 'Yes' button and put the 'Yes' button in a different language. Make the user choose a name for a random third world child that will be killed directly as a result of you using Amazon Search.

It's not spyware, it's a fucking feature. One I've actually used. And yes, you can turn it off. Being a supporter of the EFF, I cringe when they dwell on these trivial issues.

If you want to live off the grid, don't want to have cookies or any other identifying info saved anywhere, why are you using Ubuntu to begin with? Move to a distro that's meant to make the user totally anonymous.

Re:Let's have a popup for every configurable optio (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41824917)

Yeah, how dare users actually get a choice! BURN THE HERETICAL EFF!!!

Re:Let's have a popup for every configurable optio (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41827115)

Uhh.. the OP specifically advocated having a choice, it just may not be the one the hardcore Linux user would choose, and one that most regular internet+office users wouldn't give a shit about.

The EFF has more interesting and important things to do than to care about a single option that's already built into a single Linux distro. I'm send monthly donations and I think the money could be better spent.

Not even Microsoft or Apple (1)

Exitar (809068) | about 2 years ago | (#41824765)

could put so much evil in their OS!

Re:Not even Microsoft or Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41824909)

Amen to that! I cannot believe the unconscionable, tragic decision these corrupt, baby-killing corporate-owned, slimy nazis have done. Just watch, in six months nobody will be using Ubuntu on the off chance Amazon may return a useful result.

Eclipse - the IDE not the movie (4, Interesting)

ChicoLance (318143) | about 2 years ago | (#41825093)

Yes, this inclusion into the Dash has gone a bit to far.

I upgraded a machine over the weekend to 12.10, and after a couple of installs of my various packages I like, I went to Unity Dash to search for "Eclipse" to see if I'd already installed the Java IDE or not.

Instead of simply saying "no", it instead gave me returns for all sorts of Twilight movies and books. Amazon probably has it on my wish list already.

I'll search Amazon when I want to search Amazon. When Dash is now the way to launch programs on my box instead of menus, I want it to launch programs.

    --Lance

Re:Eclipse - the IDE not the movie (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41825191)

RTFM nubtard.

Re:Eclipse - the IDE not the movie (1)

zigfreed (1441541) | about 2 years ago | (#41827121)

This is my experience with dash in 12.10 as well. By default it crams as much useless information in as possible. It posts magazines from the Ubuntu software center before it posts the programs those magazines reference.

I don't mind it searching Amazon, however posting Amazon searches in full view unless entirely disabled is moronic.

Re:Eclipse - the IDE not the movie (1)

luther349 (645380) | about a year ago | (#41828689)

try the new builds of enlightenment it pretty much has the best of everything without messing it up or eating up the entire system.

(N)eubuntu (1)

Penurious Penguin (2687307) | about 2 years ago | (#41825253)

Welcome to Ubuntu: An experimental and totally free Neuro-Marketing Neo-Linux Neon Skinner-Box that rivals DARPA while remaining cute enough for children -- and irresistible to moths.
With (N)eubuntu, anyone can contribute to open-source.
Install now to begin clicking bubbles and sharing your information with other interesting entities right away!
Once you have the (N)eubuntu Experience©, you'll wonder why the hell you ever considered Linux!

Aol (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41825355)

The 90's called. They want you to give their AOL CD's back and stop writing Ubuntu on them...

Hey Mark, (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41825879)

get ready for some *nal, s*cker...

I hope Canonical pays some attention to this story (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41825997)

Accepting a small chunk of money from Amazon in exchange for promotion (big, shiny, opt-in dialogue with a "remind me later" option) will keep the respect and support of quite a lot of the community.

Accepting a large chunk of money to allow Amazon to effectively spy on the majority of users (desktop search queries sent to Amazon by default) is outright despicable and will many to actively disrecommend Ubuntu.

Re:I hope Canonical pays some attention to this st (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#41828371)

I realize this search thing is trivial to disable, but a privacy violation is a total showstopper no matter how small. The people who include something like this as default are not the people I want to produce my OS, the next time I may not notice it. End of story and bye Ubuntu.

At least all the unity crap introduced in the recent versions won't make me miss Ubuntu as much as I would have before.

Amazon+Ubuntu? (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | about 2 years ago | (#41826513)

Actually I wonder how much Mark Shuttleworth would get if he sold Ubuntu to Amazon. And I wonder if he is wondering the same thing.

enhancement request (5, Funny)

MadMaverick9 (1470565) | about 2 years ago | (#41826785)

Some ubuntu users feel that this amazon search functionality should be expanded to other applications as well. For example grep search results should include amazon search results.

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-terminal/+bug/1055766 [launchpad.net]

Re:enhancement request (2)

xded (1046894) | about a year ago | (#41828311)

Interesting? I feel as if several mods are suddenly hearing a wooshing sound in terror...

Dear "root owning" overlords,
When using grep recursively I only get local results:
[...]
I declare this a bug for two reasons:
1. The output is boring.
2. The terminal has more than 2 lines!!! It's an unefficient use of my screenspace.
I believe the reason for this is that the grep command only searches locally for things I am actually looking for, I kind of expect the results I get from my codebase and as such it removes any sense of mystery or something new and exciting to spice up my dull geek existence. That's boring, grep -R should also search amazon, so I get more exciting results such as:
Shark Season 1 Starring Steven Eckholdt, Nora Dunn, Patrick Fabian, et al. Amazon Instant Video to buy episodes: $1.99 to buy season: $34.99 ($1.59 per episode)
[...]
Please can you change the grep warez to have this feature, and just install it on my machine while I'm down the pub, after all you do "erm, have root", so it should be easy for you to do :-)
[...]
Sent from my Unity device, (which is why it took several glacial ages and a couple of eras to get it done)

Mint (2)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | about a year ago | (#41828615)

In about 3 or 4 years, Mint will eclipse Ubuntu mainly due to OSX me-too shenanigans like this. Move now; I'd recommend LMDE.

Re:Mint (1)

luther349 (645380) | about a year ago | (#41828693)

i recommend bodhi with the e17 wm trust me its awesome.and nearly as light as lxde.

The EFF needs to shut up.. (1)

toddmbloom (1625689) | about a year ago | (#41828717)

..and go away already. Good riddance to those trolls.All they do is campaign for the rights of freeloaders to get free stuff.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>