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!

Ubuntu's Mark Shuttleworth Wins Austria's Big Brother Award

Unknown Lamer posted about a year ago | from the it-burns dept.

Ubuntu 116

sfcrazy writes "Austria's Big Brother Awards awarded the coveted Big Brother Award to Ubuntu's founder Mark Shuttleworth for Ubuntu Dash's privacy reducing online extensions to local searches." From the article: "What’s bad here and raises question here is that despite repeated requests Canonical refused to make the tracking option opt-in. The feature is installed and enabled by default so the moment one install Ubuntu it starts sending info to Canonical servers until the user deliberately disables it."

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

Freedom isn't free (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45263823)

How do you expect Canonical to continue helping Linux actually become usable on the desktop? You neckbeards weren't doing such a good job before Ubuntu came around.

Re:Freedom isn't free (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45263911)

You neckbeards weren't doing such a good job before Ubuntu came around.

'We' don't care if other people adopt it on the desktop.

We do care when someone tries to turn Linux into a douche-bag, spy on everything you do thing so Shuttleworth can get more ad revenue. Fuck him.

And, I'm afraid I would never use Canonical ever again.

Re: Freedom isn't free (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45264077)

Ok, how do you think they can sustain the operation and remain 'free' then?

Re: Freedom isn't free (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45264115)

Ok, how do you think they can sustain the operation and remain 'free' then?

That's not really our problem, is it?

Other distros doesn't use those tactics and they're doing just fine.

Re: Freedom isn't free (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | about a year ago | (#45265891)

Ok, how do you think they can sustain the operation and remain 'free' then?

RedHat, SuSE (Novell), Linux Mint, and a whole buttload of other distros have found monetary income w/o resorting to bullshit techniques - why can't Canonical?

Re: Freedom isn't free (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | about a year ago | (#45266301)

Well, Linux Mint is based on Ubuntu. So one could argue that they can use the work done by Canonical but won't have to pay for it.

Re: Freedom isn't free (1)

red crab (1044734) | about a year ago | (#45266799)

Well, Linux Mint is based on Ubuntu. So one could argue that they can use the work done by Canonical but won't have to pay for it.

And Ubuntu is based on Debian. So one could argue that they can use the work done by Debian but won't have to pay for it?

Re:Freedom isn't free (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45264385)

We do care when someone tries to turn Linux into a douche-bag, spy on everything you do thing so Shuttleworth can get more ad revenue. Fuck him.

And, I'm afraid I would never use Canonical ever again.

So I'm assuming you also don't use Google either since they have equally turned Linux into a douche-bag, spy on everything you do thing so Google can get more ad revenue.

Re:Freedom isn't free (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45265911)

I would trust microsoft more than google.

Re:Freedom isn't free (1)

syockit (1480393) | about a year ago | (#45266125)

Wait, if you don't care people adopt it on the desktop, why do you even care that Ubuntu exists? In what way does its existence harm your Linux experience?

I'm pretty sure GNOME shooting itself in the foot has nothing to do with the introduction of Unity.

Upstart did get adopted by Fedora for a while, but that's just Fedora being Fedora (even now it's replaced with homebrewn systemd). I doubt hardcore Linux users were affected; the distros they use didn't adopt them.

If there's anything you might be annoyed with, maybe it's the Eternal September effect: forums getting filled with noob questions who by people don't RTFM, or the pollution of search results of the keyword "linux" with mostly Ubuntu-centric stuff. But a simple google-fu takes care of that.

Re:Freedom isn't free (1)

Linzer (753270) | about a year ago | (#45267247)

Wait, if you don't care people adopt it on the desktop, why do you even care that Ubuntu exists? In what way does its existence harm your Linux experience?

It harms my Linux experience because nowadays some software developers support Ubuntu and then claim they support Linux.

Re:Freedom isn't free (4, Interesting)

Enderandrew (866215) | about a year ago | (#45264011)

FWIW, I don't think Unity has done much to improve the desktop experience, though that is somewhat a matter of taste.

Canonical marketed Linux to the extent that Ubuntu was tracking higher as a keyword in searches than Linux.

I'd like to thank the KDE devs however for making Linux usable on the desktop.

Re:Freedom isn't free (3, Interesting)

Nerdfest (867930) | about a year ago | (#45264047)

Not just usable in the HMI sense, but usable because it's solid. Unity is a slow, crashy disaster, and even though I can tolerate Gnome Shell, it's just too unstable to use for real work, with daily crashes. Although these are generally non-fatal, they tend to leave things in a 'not quite right' state. Even the very latest KDE tends to be very fast and very solid these days.

Re:Freedom isn't free (2)

Enderandrew (866215) | about a year ago | (#45264153)

I haven't checked it out recently, but Ubuntu doesn't necessarily have a reputation for solid bug-free packages that never crash. Ubuntu doesn't have as many engineers, developers or package maintainers as Novell or Red Hat.

Ubuntu's KDE packages were so famously awful that it soured a lot of people who assumed KDE must be buggy and unstable on its own (when openSUSE and Fedora KDE packages are rock solid).

Re:Freedom isn't free (2)

cmdr_tofu (826352) | about a year ago | (#45265281)

The Ubuntu LTS releases are actually pretty good. Of course it is just a re-presentation of all the work that goes into the Debian project. I don't like where Ubuntu is going with default Window managers. Ubuntu is what got me off of olvwm/enlightenment and onto Gnome 2. Now I use xfce under Ubuntu 12.04 LTS and it's perfectly acceptable, and no intrusive Amazon search.

Re:Freedom isn't free (1)

Enderandrew (866215) | about a year ago | (#45265309)

I recall a few years back that they had a LTS release with a beta version of Firefox that was broken, broken Pulse Audio, and even worse, a bad binary blob in the Intel gigabit NIC drivers that would permanently brick your NIC if you loaded the driver.

LTS releases are supported longer, but that doesn't make them more stable on day one. Nor does it change the fact that the packages get the same polish the other fairly bleeding edge Ubuntu releases get.

Red Hat and Debian Stable seem to be overly cautious with sticking with old packages forever for "stability", even if known bugs exist in old packages. Ubuntu is very bleeding edge sometimes at the cost of stability.

I think there needs to be a fairly sane middle ground where each package gets reasonable polish, but you also get newer packages out somewhat quickly. But that takes a lot of package maintainers.

Re:Freedom isn't free (1)

horza (87255) | about a year ago | (#45266917)

Unity is getting slow. I get crash errors ever 10 mins, no idea what is crashing but it doesn't affect my usage apart from having to keep closing those error boxes. I would LOVE to get involved and try the latest Ubuntu but I really don't want to install spyware on my machine.

Remember all those Ubuntu apologists before? "Why worry about it, it's as simple as apt-get remove somewierdname". Next version is suddenly more integrated and you can no longer simply apt-get remove the package. Gullible fools.

However KDE looks awful. It is so unpolished. And there are loads of UI bugs that make it unpleasant to use. The final straw for me was double-clicking on a movie residing on my NAS, and KDE deciding to spend 5 mins copying the whole thing to /tmp before attempting to play it.

So far XFCE is shaping up to be the next popular desktop. I've moved several people to it and they love it. It feels a little basic for me but then what is the alternative?

The best things that could happen:
a) Canonical back-tracks and decides not to screw over its user base
b) KDE has a massive sprint to fix UI, and forgets trying to aim for QT 8.0 which works on smart watches
c) developers shift from Unity to XFCE and it starts to take over
d) a new contender emerges

So far (d) looks the more likely, despite so much time and effort already sunk into and currently wasted in (a) and (b).

Phillip.

Re:Freedom isn't free (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45264417)

KDE is fucking disgusting. Figures Linux aspies are so fond of it

Re:Freedom isn't free (2, Insightful)

occasional_dabbler (1735162) | about a year ago | (#45264149)

Harshly stated, but in essence, true: Linux has to generate income. Android does it with massive, unavoidable invasion of privacy. Ubuntu does it with a minor, transparent and easily disabled intrusion into some of your online life. It's not like any of us have any real privacy online anymore anyway, so why not let some of the goodies leak to someone actually fdoing something positive with it?

Re:Freedom isn't free (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45264349)

They could just ask people to buy a license... It doesn't have to pirate-proof, just ask for a small payment in exchange for a license key, those who want will pay for it and those who don't want or can't afford will use a pirated key. Way back, I paid for an Opera license even though I could get a free Netscape or IE, because Opera was a much much better product IMO. I also drop some money into buskers' hats when I appreciate their performance, many other people do too. I'd pay for a solid spy-free Ubuntu as well.

Re:Freedom isn't free (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45265609)

You know, the equivalent version of 'pirated software' in the open source world is a fork... That's the exact opposite of what you want.

It isn't like in windows, that every pirated version counts, because world domination & etc...

In open source, the instant you fuck with your users, a fork is made, then, if lucky, community shifts.
See MySQL-MariaDB, Ubuntu - Mint, openOffice - Libreoffice.
And that's also why fedora is a fantastic idea.

Re:Freedom isn't free (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45265841)

They do, on every download.

Re:Freedom isn't free (1)

fido_dogstoyevsky (905893) | about a year ago | (#45266157)

They could just ask people to buy a license... It doesn't have to pirate-proof, just ask for a small payment in exchange for a license key, those who want will pay for it and those who don't want or can't afford will use a pirated key. Way back, I paid for an Opera license even though I could get a free Netscape or IE, because Opera was a much much better product IMO. I also drop some money into buskers' hats when I appreciate their performance, many other people do too. I'd pay for a solid spy-free Ubuntu as well.

Trouble is, it (the licence) isn't Canonical's to sell.

They can, however, charge for support, documentation, physical medium (the DVD set), access to their servers for downloading and a whole lot of other things I can't be bothered thinking up. But not for a licence. And if they charge too much for any of those things we can all look forward to the new free (as in beer) Tatmsa 9000 distribution (which will look a lot like Ubuntu).

Re:Freedom isn't free (4, Insightful)

RoboJ1M (992925) | about a year ago | (#45267039)

They do.
The ask for a donation when you download the ISO.
And guess what?
They complained about that too. Very loudly indeed.
In summary, there will always be people on forums complaining about everything.
They will always be first and loudest.
The people who just install it, judge it good enough and put a dollar in the hat don't go on-line to troll about it.
Long live Mark, Canonical, Unity and Mir. ;)

Re:Freedom isn't free (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45264551)

Debian does it through voluntary donations.
20 years and going.

Re:Freedom isn't free (1)

foobar bazbot (3352433) | about a year ago | (#45264613)

Harshly stated, but in essence, true: Linux has to generate income. Android does it with massive, unavoidable invasion of privacy. Ubuntu does it with a minor, transparent and easily disabled intrusion into some of your online life.

Debian does it with volunteer work where possible, and donations [debian.org] for stuff (e.g. hosting) that needs money.

Arch does it with a similar volunteer/donation scheme.

Uncle Pat [slackware.com] does it with stability and simplicity, to the exclusion of modernity (e.g. still no PAM, no sysv init scripts, and you bet your life no systemd/upstart) -- and enough people want this option to remain available that they voluntarily buy CD sets (in lieu of downloading ISOs) or slackware-branded merchandise, in sufficient amounts to pay the bills for Pat.

But yeah, if you're making a distro that doesn't appeal to either the sort of people who can volunteer useful help, or the sort who are willing to donate money (whether structured as a "donation", or as the "purchase" of physical media), I guess maybe you have to hope they're the sort who'll barter away their privacy for software. Since I am the sort who has donated and will continue to donate to projects I'd rather didn't die, I by definition don't care about projects that need to monetize my privacy to continue existing.

Or if you're greedy^Wprofit-oriented, and therefore want more income than people are willing to donate, you might have to seek alternate income sources such as users giving up their privacy. But I don't care about that, because IMO I'm a lot better off using a distro made by people focusing on making a good distro, than one made by people focusing on making a big profit. But what do I know, I'm one of those crazy* right-libertarians who believes the only thing better than a (reasonably small) company, driven to make a good product by competition and the greed/profit motive, is a (reasonably small) co-op, driven to make a good product by the members' individual motive to benefit from the goodness of the product they themselves both make and use.

I believe both preceeding cases describe Canonical, a for-profit company making an OS that's wildly popular with freeloading "end-user" types -- so I don't question the economic sense (for Canonical) of resorting privacy-monetization, and I don't really mind that they and their non-privacy-valuing users make that voluntary trade. OTOH, for the reasons stated, I also don't care whether Canonical disappears from the face of the Earth, so if I find myself, for whatever reason, using an Ubuntu machine, you can bet I'm turning it off.

*craziness measured relative to my fellow US right-libertarians, to most of whom "co-op" is a four-letter word. I have seriously heard the sentence "I can see why you'd want such a thing, but a co-op just feels too socialist for me." Yeah, we're all about the individual liberties, economic freedom of voluntary association, etc., but the moment a few guys want to voluntarily associate into a certain class of organization, without imposing it on anyone else, we knee-jerk and cry "socialist"?! </political-rant>

Re:Freedom isn't free (1)

occasional_dabbler (1735162) | about a year ago | (#45266661)

But yeah, if you're making a distro that doesn't appeal to either the sort of people who can volunteer useful help, or the sort who are willing to donate money

I must be an exception then, since I've contributed both code and money and if you spend a little time in the vast Ubuntu Forums you'll find there are plenty of people contributing expertise, if not actual code, much of which is useful for any distro, not just *buntu.

I personally don't use the Launcher thing for anything other than launching programs so I'm not sending any meaningful search data to Amazon (Do I care if they know I opened gparted?) However I do think the whole 'scope' idea is interesting and for this reason I've left it activated just to see how it might develop into something that I would find useful one day.

Re:Freedom isn't free (1)

jedidiah (1196) | about a year ago | (#45264841)

> Ubuntu does it with a minor

So Canonical is completely in the black now? Otherwise your blithering is completely pointless. Shuttleworth has sold out without really actually gaining anything.

Meanwhile, all of the real work is still being done by someone else and whatever money Canonical happens to be making isn't contributing to the overall bottom line.

Re:Freedom isn't free (1)

foobar bazbot (3352433) | about a year ago | (#45265395)

> Ubuntu does it with a minor

Hey, I don't like Ubuntu either, but accusing them of statutory rape seems a little harsh!

Re:Freedom isn't free (1)

occasional_dabbler (1735162) | about a year ago | (#45266617)

> all of the real work is still being done by someone else.

If Canonical weren't doing something then Ubuntu would be Debian. They are adding value, even if it may not be of value to you.

Re:Freedom isn't free (1)

Patch86 (1465427) | about a year ago | (#45266625)

Shuttleworth has said before that Canonical would be in the black if you discount the money they're spending on Touch. The server and OpenStack business is very profitable for them, the desktop business is around break even, and their Touch stuff is very loss-making. In the interview, he suggested that he'd rather spend his money (he being the major bankroller still) shooting for glory than settling for a profitable little server business pointlessly nibbling at Red Hat's leftovers.

You can say a lot about Shuttleworth, but he's not prone to lying about this sort of thing.

Wut? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45263867)

If that is the biggest brother in Austria, they are living in paradise.

Re:Wut? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45264517)

It just means that they dare not offend the Bigger Brothers.

Re:Wut? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45264663)

The NSA issue won in another category and also received some kind of "award for life". Apparently there are many categories. Steve Ballmer won in the category "business and finance"

Stop making assumptions without making an effort to learn more about the story.

And by the way, Shuttleworth roundly deserves his award just as the NSA does, even though the NSA is worse. The NSA scandal is not the new yardstick by which to measure things, because every other scandal would be dwarfed by it, without the 'smaller' scandals being any less serious.

Shuttleworth's attitude is getting worse every month.

It's the context: free software is generally safe (1)

ciaran_o_riordan (662132) | about a year ago | (#45267397)

The problems with Ubuntu are a big deal because getting people to switch to free software was supposed to be the solution to these privacy problems. We had a nice, simple message: "GNU/Linux doesn't spy on you". Ubuntu muddies the waters, which is annoying because solutions are pretty thin on the ground.

selling data (4, Insightful)

I.M.O.G. (811163) | about a year ago | (#45263901)

Most people within core mass market demographics don't realize or care how much data they send, so defaults are important economically. If the financial motivations are in the wrong place, the wrong decision will be made for invested parties. I don't know of any business that is successful and doesn't exploit this general sort of opportunity. It paints Ubuntu as a villain, but its more business as usual and isn't unique to Ubuntu.

Re:selling data (1)

mrchaotica (681592) | about a year ago | (#45264215)

That just means that all the other totalitarian assholes running those other companies deserve to share the 'award.'

He earned it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45263907)

Well, he certainly earned it ... now can we have a "biggest asshole in Linux" award? He's a shoe-in for that too.

Re:He earned it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45264539)

Sorry, but biggest asshole in Linux goes to the almighty Larry Ellison. It's not a fair competition, though.

Re:He earned it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45265145)

RMS for trying to hijack it.

Riiiiiight... (5, Insightful)

FuzzNugget (2840687) | about a year ago | (#45263943)

Because, of all the privacy violators made apparent in the past several months, Canonical is clearly the worst offender.

Re:Riiiiiight... (0, Flamebait)

sgage (109086) | about a year ago | (#45264003)

You don't understand...

Ubuntu was threatening to be successful in the wider market. Therefore, it must be taken down at any cost! Once again, the FOSS "community" (gack!) eats its young.

This sort of nonsense is why Linux "market share" will never get anywhwere.

Re:Riiiiiight... (-1, Flamebait)

Narcocide (102829) | about a year ago | (#45264061)

Seriously? That's your highly enlightened opinion? The FOSS community only tries to "eat" the unethical and inept. They don't do a complete enough job of it either apparently, because you actually got up today and were allowed to spew out this completely uneducated bullshit. If you had actually paid attention to the surveilance features Canonical is building into their system and compared them to ANY OTHER LINUX OFFERING WHATSOEVER you'd see they're moving directly opposite of the entire intent of the rest of the FOSS community with regards to software freedom and privacy.

But you didn't actually, did you? You're trolling for Ubuntu because you were proud you installed it successfully after having failed so many times with other distros, and it made you feel smart because you didn't even need to read anything to get "working" desktop environment.

Grow up kid and start putting your effort somewhere it won't be wasted. Canonical has paid people to do this job you're doing for them.

Re:Riiiiiight... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45264457)

Wow that really hit a nerve! And it is "free software" which means you are free to change what you dont like, hell you could re-distribute it with those features ripped out if you wanted.

Even if it was trolling like you claim it to be then it still worked damn well on you, I just love it when douchebags like you get so angry that you start calling them trolls in the process of responding. You do understand what trolling is don't you?

Re:Riiiiiight... (1)

Narcocide (102829) | about a year ago | (#45264899)

His statement was OBVIOUSLY inflammatory and factually inaccurate, and you know it, you astroturfing fuck-face. Do you want to admonish me for my bad behavior and poor language too now? Maybe you should have the teacher call my mommy. Piss off.

Re:Riiiiiight... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45265221)

Wow that hit a nerve even harder than GGGP's post :) You really are an angry angry person.

and no i dont care about your poor language you sad cunt :P

Re:Riiiiiight... (1)

cripkd (709136) | about a year ago | (#45266405)

What's wrong with a linux desktop that "just works"?
I'm not homophobic but it seems you don't like anything that doesn't get you all sweaty and greased in the process. Am I wrong?

Re:Riiiiiight... (4, Insightful)

Nerdfest (867930) | about a year ago | (#45264063)

Regardless of whether or not it reduces market share, it's behaviour that should be discouraged. There's frequently a difference between doing what's popular and what's right.

Re:Riiiiiight... (3, Insightful)

sgage (109086) | about a year ago | (#45264219)

Discouraged, yes. Though I just installed the latest Ubuntu and this stuff was opt-in, so perhaps the cries were heard. My point is that to award this distinction to Ubuntu in the face of all the crap going down on the Internet is simply absurd, extremely small potatoes, and smacks of sour grapes and/or piling on, which is the norm for the FOSS press.

What's popular isn't always "right" (who decides that?), but we really might maintain a sense of proportion. In over 15 years of observing the FOSS world, it really seems that if you start to get any traction in the wider world, the "community" (as if there were a "community") seems to want to smack it down. For all the talk of world domination and so on and so forth, the "community" seems on some visceral level to want to remain marginal, They are getting their wish.

Re:Riiiiiight... (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | about a year ago | (#45264427)

We, the FOSS community decide what's right. It makes it difficult for people who want to push the boundaries of the acceptable though, as I've seen a couple of studies that show a bit of what they called "Hero Syndrome" in the IT community as a whole. I'm not sure if it's from being bullied, reading too many comic books or something else, but apparently it exists. I think it's a good thing, but the Microsoft and Apple marketing and development teams most definitely don't have it, and that leaves FOSS at a but of an idealistic disadvantage.

Re:Riiiiiight... (1)

sgage (109086) | about a year ago | (#45264487)

I guess one of my points is that I don't believe there is a "we, the FOSS community". I used to think so, but now there seems to be nothing but a swarm of multiple contingents jockeying for position to further their project, and dumping on the other projects. I suppose it was ever thus, really. In any case, it guarantees that FOSS goes nowhere.

Re:Riiiiiight... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45264655)

The price system in a free market allows people who may ordinarily hate each other to indirectly cooperate by acting in their own interest. FOSS is similar to a free market, with participants acting in their own interest but whose actions indirectly benefit everyone. This chaos of uncoordinated individuals is in fact where FOSS's strength comes from. It is an illusion that centrally-imposed control would lead to any kind of improvement and it may well dissuade FOSS developers from contributing if they feel they are being directed by someone else's interests.

Re:Riiiiiight... (1)

exomondo (1725132) | about a year ago | (#45264679)

We, the FOSS community decide what's right.

Who is this "we, the FOSS community"? I would have thought Ubuntu and Google were part of the FOSS community, even Apple makes significant contributions to FOSS, are they included? I don't think there is some "FOSS community" that makes these decisions.

Re:Riiiiiight... (1)

dugancent (2616577) | about a year ago | (#45264757)

There is no "we the people". There are as many opinions about what direction to go as there are people. FOSS is not a singular voice.

You're wrong and you're a bad person too. (0)

Narcocide (102829) | about a year ago | (#45264163)

Let us see how many mod points your friends have today.

Re:You're wrong and you're a bad person too. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45265329)

Im not wrong! Everybody else is wrong!

Re:Riiiiiight... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45264167)

No, because they're the ones who pretend to care and are least apologetic.

Re:Riiiiiight... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45264967)

Those bigger privacy violators have been widely reported on everything from Al Jazeera to Fox News, so anyone who cares a bit already knows about them. But almost nobody outside of the geek community have heard of Canonical. This is a way to keep people from innocently latching onto Unity as the Linux Open-Source Savior Of Freedom.

Re:Riiiiiight... (1)

exomondo (1725132) | about a year ago | (#45265919)

Just because the default behavior is to ask you to opt-in to the sending of searches hardly makes it any less 'free'. In fact the source code can be downloaded, modified to automatically opt-out and re-distributed if you really want to, because it's free! That's the whole point of free software, that if you don't like the default or want additional features you can add them.

Re:Riiiiiight... (1)

John Balance (2796767) | about a year ago | (#45266085)

The NSA has won the Austrian Big Brother Lifetime Award this year. There's no higher "honour". Google and Facebook have won in the last couple of years, so from the last remaining options they chose the worst.

FUD (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45264023)

They are talking about typing something into a field labeled "Search your computer and online sources. I repeat: "SEARCH YOUR COMPUTER AND ONLINE SOURCES" (caps seems to be necessary).
Besides that, you can very easily enable/disable sources (by clicking them in the same dash), completely remove sources with your package manager, or disable all online searches.

But, why in Kropotkinsname would anyone want to disable the online search? If you want to get the weather, calculation, wikipedia page, wouldn't you just lookup the result on the web instead? Or even worse: search it with Google?

Re:FUD (3, Interesting)

foobar bazbot (3352433) | about a year ago | (#45264767)

They are talking about typing something into a field labeled "Search your computer and online sources.

Call me crazy, but I normally have a real good idea whether I'm searching for something on my computer or on the interwebz. And the only use case I can think of where I'd ever want to search both for the same thing is if I want to run an app (say, Google Earth) that may or may not be installed, so I want to find and execute the installed instance, if any, and failing that, I'll search the web to find and download the installer. Even then, I want to search first one, then conditionally search the other.

So to me it's pretty obvious that the more useful behavior is two search boxen, one to search my computer, and the other to search online sources. Or perhaps one search box with two buttons, so I can click the local one, and if I don't get a result, click the web one.

But, why in Kropotkinsname would anyone want to disable the online search? If you want to get the weather, calculation, wikipedia page, wouldn't you just lookup the result on the web instead? Or even worse: search it with Google?

Well, there's two points of objection. One is an issue of how many and whose computers see your search queries -- which is ultimately addressable by changing which sources are enabled. In order to do an internet search, you've obviously gotta trust somebody with your search query -- so pick somebody and set up your sources correspondingly.

The other, and IMO bigger point, is that somebody -- whether it's canonical's search service, google, duckduckgo, or ixquick -- is receiving info every time you use that tool to search for a local document. No matter how much I trust ixquick, it's senseless to entrust them with more data in exchange for no benefit, so when I know I'm searching for a local file, I'd like the easy choice to not have my search query posted to any web search engine. Again, give me two search boxes, or one box with two (or more -- one for each source, one for all sources, etc.) buttons.

"Coveted"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45264039)

Oh, right. Newspeak.

If its free, then you're the product (3, Insightful)

Gothmolly (148874) | about a year ago | (#45264057)

Just like Google - YOU are the product, not the search (or other) services.

Re:If its free, then you're the product (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45264703)

Your search is - in some capacity - a "product" that they "sell" to say Amazon but it's just the keyword(s) which are then mapped to an attempt at a relevant advertisement to then display back to you. If "you" are the product in this sense then you are equally the product when watching free-to-air TV (or any TV with advertisements for that matter). If you want to look at it from that perspective then it's certainly not a new concept.

Re:If its free, then you're the product (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45264985)

Only when for-profit companies are concerned. The vast majority of GNU/Linux distros are free and do not sell their community.

Re:If its free, then you're the product (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45265855)

There is no free lunch. If you want to have good engineering and quality assurance departments, you need money. Many distros collect it in the form of donations.

So sick of hearing this crap (3, Insightful)

thegarbz (1787294) | about a year ago | (#45267363)

You are not the "product" just because you use something appears to have no dollar value assigned to it, and just because I don't pay to use Google or any of their services does not mean they aren't services.

I pay them with my information and they allow me to use their services. They in turn sell this information to others who associate a dollar value with it. This is not unlike the bartering system where I give you a goat in exchange for you building me a table and you then give the goat to someone else in exchange for gold.

Yes Google makes money off our information, but good luck getting that information without enticing us with the ability to use their products and services which in turn cost them quite a lot to supply. Anyone who claims that a person is the product is woefully ignorant of the flow of value through Google's intricate web.

Bottom line is that Google offer many products and services and we pay for them with information.

Big Brother for Shuttleworth? (0)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year ago | (#45264087)

Then what is left for Obama? Big Grandfather? And there is a lot of players in the middle ground, (Cameron, Cook, Zuckerberg, Ballmer and a long list of etcs) that are heads and shoulders over whatever Ubuntu could ever do.

There's an axe and I hear it grinding (2)

umafuckit (2980809) | about a year ago | (#45264225)

There are better candidates for the Big Brother award than Shuttleworth.

The Fall of Ubuntu (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45264251)

This surprisingly heavy handed action is why I'll no longer use Ubuntu. Choice is a great thing.

Not the NSA? (3, Insightful)

NoKaOi (1415755) | about a year ago | (#45264315)

The article blabs on and on about how this is a Big Brother-ish threat because the data could easily be obtained by the NSA. So why not just give the award to the NSA? Or, if it has to be an individual, then to the president or the head of the NSA? I though maybe it had to go to a company operating in the EU, since Canonical is from the UK, but then realized that we know the NSA operates in the EU too. So, maybe the company is being evil by doing this, but clearly not as evil as the US government and its TLAs.

Re:Not the NSA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45264513)

Wait, Spy agencies are *gasp* spying on people? Outrage!

Re:Not the NSA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45264741)

Yes, outrage, you fucking asshole, outrage. Down with Big Brother.

Re:Not the NSA? (0)

cascadingstylesheet (140919) | about a year ago | (#45264637)

The article blabs on and on about how this is a Big Brother-ish threat because the data could easily be obtained by the NSA. So why not just give the award to the NSA? Or, if it has to be an individual, then to the president or the head of the NSA?

Seems logical, huh? But Obama's responsibility repulsion field apparently keeps that from happening.

Re:Not the NSA? (1)

JosefSit (1805244) | about a year ago | (#45265487)

You (and a lot of other people) are asking, why not the NSA? Well, here is the answer: The NSA alongside the austrian government (for saying nothing) has won the Big Brother Award in the category politcs. It was titled the german name of the movie "The Silence of the Lambs" (Das Schweigen der Lämmer).

Re:Not the NSA? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45266257)

Maybe because the head of NSA probably can't really change anything the NSA does (he might get replaced if he turned the agency into a day care center)? While Mark (can I call you Mark?), probably can change Ubuntu?

Re:Not the NSA? (1)

cccc828 (740705) | about a year ago | (#45266317)

> So why not just give the award to the NSA?

In fact they gave three awards to the NSA (Source in German [heise.de] ). They won "Lifelong Annoyence", the audience award (shared with GCHQ) and in the category "politics" (shared with the Austrian goverment).

If there's one thing to take away (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45264335)

It's that Linux users always manage to shoot themselves in the foot.

Re:If there's one thing to take away (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45264389)

Linux user here. In my case, I shot myself in the penis. Long story. Anyhow, when life hands you AIDS, make lemonAIDS, as they say. And that's why I'm a linux user.

Re:If there's one thing to take away (1)

Iskender (1040286) | about a year ago | (#45265261)

Thank you for today's Linux troll post. It was above-average.

What non-buntu users think (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45264463)

Let me illustrate what the non-buntu distro users are thinking Ha Ha! [youtu.be] /pp.

Shuttleworth? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45264573)

I don't use Ubuntu as a result of the tracking, but they really couldn't find any product that invades privacy more in 2013? They aren't aware of any websites or applications that silently track users, or any tablet/smarthpone software that accesses private information it shouldn't?

He's probably happy to win the award. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45264659)

It comes with a free kangaroo.

Re:He's probably happy to win the award. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45265155)

Austria you fucking idiot. AUSTRIA.

Re:He's probably happy to win the award. (1)

foobar bazbot (3352433) | about a year ago | (#45265421)

Ah, yes, it's Austria, not Australia. s/kangaroo/kangoo/g Fixed.

Re:He's probably happy to win the award. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45266175)

"Kangoo" has nothing to do with Austria specifically.

And your regex substitution could have been reduced to:

s/ar//

Just sayin'

P.S. Captcha was "coding" :)

overblown (1)

samantha (68231) | about a year ago | (#45264729)

Read a bit about dash and what it does and doesn't do. Much as I admire Stallman the man is into some serious polemics (otherwise known as FUD) at times.

For instance read:
http://www.zdnet.com/ubuntu-extends-unity-dash-search-shrugs-off-criticism-7000021869/ [zdnet.com]
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/12/richard-stallman-calls-ubuntu-spyware-because-it-tracks-searches/ [arstechnica.com]

Has Stallman head of Machine Learning and its use to improve search results? How does this occur without training data from actual searches over time? As long as it is anonymized at the recording end I don't have an issue.

Re:overblown (1)

exomondo (1725132) | about a year ago | (#45265983)

As long as it is anonymized at the recording end I don't have an issue.

...and given that it's free software that can be verified (or implemented). I don't understand why some of the FOSS community is trying to alienate Canonical, we already know not everybody is going to share the same beliefs/morals so this is the perfect opportunity to demonstrate how the benefits of free software can be utilized to take Canonical's product and also make it palatable to those who feel the search feature is a privacy violation.

I'm not saying Canonical should be celebrated for this but instead of just hating on them why not use this as an opportunity to demonstrate why free software is so good? Otherwise this is just showing that the often-espoused benefits of free software aren't practically utilized anyway, it's really no different that a proprietary program.

Re:overblown (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45267067)

They say it's anonymized, but you try searching the dash for say "sex with 6 year olds" (because it's the name of an article you're writing that's on your hard drive for some reason) and see if you don't get a knock at the door. It's unlikely, but I still wouldn't like to try it.

The NSA too... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45264809)

The summery is a little bit short, as the article lists more winners than just Shuttleworth/Ubuntu...

Shuttleworth got the price in the category "Communication and Marketing"
"Business and Finance" went to the XBox One for permanent voice and gesture survailance in the livingroom
"Public Offices and Administration" went to the Austrian Attorney General for failing to implement a secure whistleblower platform (storing the data on a rented cloudserver)
"Politics" went to the austrian chancellor and the government as a whole for drawing a vail of silence over the whole NSA affair...
"Global Datahunger" went to the ITU for defining the deep packet inspection requirements in next generation networks.

NSA got covered in the last two prices.

Ubuntu in decline (1)

lapm (750202) | about a year ago | (#45266031)

Personally i do not accept default option where Cannonical gets info even on local searches. So i don't use regular Ubuntu. I got couple older laptops that runs light version of Ubuntu.Thank god no mandatory warrant-less searches there. Im all for Cannonical to gain ad-revenue if they need it. But not at expence of them knowing what i search in my local repositories. I do coding sometimes and most of that is done either case by case basis or just for myself. I also have documents that im contractually obliged to keep secret. Do i want someone else to know what i search locally? Hell no. What i don't understand why don't they just ask during a installing system: Would you like to help us spy on you and gain even more advertisement revenue by letting us see everything you search on your computer, over internet or locally?

Re:Ubuntu in decline (1)

intermodal (534361) | about a year ago | (#45268155)

I don't run Ubuntu, but if my present OS attempted to do this to me, I'd jump ship and find a new one.

Hrm... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45266455)

Everyone seems to be making a mountain over a mole hill, the Amazon lens for Unity isn't spyware and can be easily turned off in the Settings panel and does not send any information personal to the user, it is fully open-source so you can examine how it works and Canonical tell you it's there... How is this spyware ??? Stop trolling a good Os and just turn it off, or better yet, use Xubuntu where XFCE is the default window manager and stop whining...

Re:Hrm... (2)

Fruit (31966) | about a year ago | (#45266487)

You can't switch it off if you don't know it exists. Or is reading slashdot mandatory now if you want to run free software?

Re:Hrm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45267251)

Thinking about this, surely if someone is savvy enough to install Ubuntu, they can find a simple off-switch in the settings for the thing that everyone is shouting about on the internet. If they don't know the controversial search is there and don't know you can turn it off they must have their heads so far up their arses they can see the space where their brains should be (and thus probably deserve what they get)

That's the least interesting one, here's the rest (1)

YoungManKlaus (2773165) | about a year ago | (#45266763)

Much more interesting are the ones in politics (eg. because of the completely absent reaction to the NSA scandal).

Here are all the winners with a short description:

Communications and Marketing: Marc Shuttleworth, Ubuntu

Business and Finance: XBox One /Steve Ballmer, Microsoft

Administration: Whistleblower-Platform which is hosted in another country by the same institution that hosts similar services for other countries and agencies / Beatrix Karl, ÖVP

Politics: The NSA and the silence of the lambs / Werner Faymann and the government

Worldwide data hunger: ITU Technical Specification for Deep Packet Inspection / Hamadoun Touré, ITU

Lifetime nuisance: NSA - Yes we Scan

backasswards (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45267383)

Oh so Windows leaking info all over the place with no way to turn it off wasn't quite enough for the award i guess. I nominate Austria for the Ignorance award.

Microsoft? Apple? Google? Facebook? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45267505)

Why doesn't these companies get it instead, as they work with NSA. Canonical at least lets you turn off any collection of data - Microsoft, Facebook and Apple and Google hands it over without you ever knowing it.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?