Re: The Ubuntu issues

Op 30-01-13 17:18, Danyl Strype schreef:
> EH!?! Is he saying he has root access to my machine if it is running
> Ubuntu? If not, what is he saying?

Canonical/Ubuntu does, unless you turn updates off or point to an update
repo that contains only thing you've personally checked. For better or
for worse, if you use Ubuntu's update repo, Ubuntu has root on your
machine. If you use their update repo, you are required to trust them,
or check everything first.

>>> [my criticism of UbuntuOne] doesn't even make sense. There's nothing proprietary on your system
> to do with it so far as I know. The server side may (I'm not sure) be closed, <<
> 
> It's worrying that you defend this proprietary software without even
> checking basic facts like whether it is (I did, as mentioned above).
> While it's technically true that the UbuntuOne client for GNU/Linux is
> free code (not sure about Windows or Mac clients), the client is no
> use without the server. 

FWIW, the Android app is free software. I infer from that that the
Windows and Mac clients are too, but haven't had a need to check.

> Robin:
>>> but while I prefer server code to be open, it's less important to me because I know that if I wanted my own, I could read the code and implement one anyway. It's not like the API is hidden. <<
> 
> This is fine, as long as the OS is only intended to be used by
> experienced sysadmins, confident with both client and server-side
> coding. 

I meant I could implement a server and make it publicly available should
I wish.

> Robin:
>>> it's probable that it's not suitable for release as it's tied closely to their environment. <<
> 
> You mean it depends on a stack in which other elements are are also
> proprietary? If so, this is an argument for releasing all that code,
> not a defence of keeping it proprietary. If not, do you mean it
> depends on a server-side stack which is unique to them? This might
> stop people running their own copy in production, but it doesn't stop
> them code auditing, or customizing it for other uses, any of which
> might be beneficial to the original developers. Or did you mean
> something else?

You are correct. What I was saying that it's likely that the server-side
components are tied into their internal network and server
implementation, and so opening them is of little use as no one else
could use them in a meaningful way. This doesn't devalue the argument
that it could be useful to audit it. Note that there's never a guarantee
that the software they publish is the same as the software they run,
however this is an issue with almost all SaaS so not so relevant. Though
this is why I prefer gitorious over github: they do the same things
(within my use cases) and gitorious is free software.

> GIT-annex looks great, but it says on the front page:
>>> git-annex is designed for git users who love the command line. <<
> 
> Again, it's clearly not aimed at the target market of Ubuntu. Average
> people are storing more and more of their everyday information on

Argg, sorry. Error on my part. I mean git-annex-assistant. It's an
interface to git-annex: "I wrote git-annex to make git usable with large
files. And for archivists, scientists, and regular geeky folks with many
photos, music, and videos, a git that can handle big files is perfect.
Now I'm going to make it easy to use too."

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/joeyh/git-annex-assistant-like-dropbox-but-with-your-own
http://git-annex.branchable.com/assistant/

I'm not sure how complete it is yet, but it's still very new (indeed, in
progress) so it may be necessary to give it time.

>>> Unless you have opted out, we will also send your keystrokes as a search term to productsearch.ubuntu.com and selected third parties so that we may complement your search results with online search results from such third parties <<
> What part am I misrepresenting?

That it's letting Amazon know what you're searching for. It's not. It's
letting Canonical know (and you trust them already) who anonymise it and
search Amazon on your behalf.

Now, keep in mind that I don't like it, turn it off, and think that if
they wanted to do this, it could be done better[0]. I just don't agree
with your arguments on it.

As for turning it off, you go to the system-wide privacy settings.
That's not the mechanism of an underhanded spyware peddler.

>>> Many browsers also send things to google as you're typing, just fyi. <<
> Really, which ones?

Firefox, if you've told it to suggest things from google, e.g. just now
I tested it by typing into the search box and it gave me a list of
suggestions from google. I also thought it did it from the regular URL
bar, but it doesn't for me so I may be wrong there. I rarely use the
normal Firefox UI. The android Firefox app will do this, but it is
strictly opt-in.

> Windows. If those releasing Ubuntu consider it acceptable to include
> spyware in their OS, I will move again. As I did with the Windows to
> GNU/Linux move, I will tell people about my move, and why I made it,
> for their information. If they choose to stay with a vendor which

And that's fine, but I felt your approach was extremely emotive and
confrontational. This isn't going to convince many people as it
immediately raises hackles. How about "this is what I'm doing and why"
rather than a (to exaggerate a lot) "it does this, I hate it and you
should too, boycott!" It feels like you're expecting everyone to hold
their privacy wishes, and almost the definition of free software[1], to
standards they may not want it to be.

>>> Shame on you for attempting to chop down the fastest advancing member of the Linux
> community. You're trying to ruin it for the rest of us. <<
> 
> http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-emotion

Only if it's part of an argument, not a final thought.

Robin.

[0] For completeness, how I'd improve it to match my privacy preferences
without removing it outright:
* By default it's only on its own lens (i.e. when you select lenses at
the bottom, it's one of them.)
* That lens has an option to make it a default search that is easy to
toggle.
* When it is a default search, it's easy to untoggle. Especially as I
may not buy anything from Amazon, but perhaps I watch a lot of youtube
and want that to be a default search instead.

[1] it's a bit of a pet peeve of mine when people try to redefine what
free software should be to suit things I don't think match it. E.g. it
has totally nothing to do with the functions of the software or what it
talks to. All that matters is that the software is free. It's OK to have
personal requirements on top of that ("I won't run anything that sends
my data to the GCSB even if it is free software"), but something that
does that isn't precluded from being free.

_______________________________________________
DunLUG mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ethernal.org/listinfo/dunlug
DunLUG Wiki - http://dunlug.kallisti.net.nz/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iEYEARECAAYFAlEI7NsACgkQFNNkhamc623joQCfSJPIaHtJbhHbMSyQLmaQwhoH
zkQAn3jIRkl87p3urc3DzJdR/rGNAcD4
=CjOY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----