Re: The Ubuntu issues

Yo,

On 30 January 2013 17:18, Danyl Strype <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> RMS effectively threw his toys out the window over an unreleased, still-in-development feature. <<
>
> Nice ad hominem from someone who just finished lecturing me about
> picking my language.

You're right - if Richard Stallman is reading this, I have a message for him:

"""
Richard,

 (I hope it's OK to call you by your first name - would you prefer Dr
Stallman?)I'd like to sincerely apologise. I'm sorry! Your opinions
seemed overly extreme, and my initial reaction was to disregard them
as the works of an extremist. I realise now that I was wrong.

Sorry!
"""

> Also, your demand for only postive feedback is
> ironic considering the company you work for originally released Ubuntu
> 12.10 with the slogan "Avoid The Pain of Windows 8" (fair, yes, but
> positive?).

I think you're confusing "constructive" with "positive". The two are
different things. I am not responsible for Canonical's marketing
strategy. You seem to be implying that I should be held accountable
for decisions made in other parts of the company?

> you seem to be trying to imply that Stallman was on his own in
> criticizing the Amazon lens package, which is not the case.

I was implying that he led the charge. Do you think we'd be having
this conversation if he'd either not said anything, or been a little
less extreme in his views? I certainly don't think so. I guess we'll
never know.


> Also, the EFF posted their critique on Oct 29, which included this
> fascinating quote from Mark Shuttleworth:
>>> Don’t trust us? Erm, we have root <<
> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/10/privacy-ubuntu-1210-amazon-ads-and-data-leaks
>
> EH!?! Is he saying he has root access to my machine if it is running
> Ubuntu? If not, what is he saying?

I think Robin summed up the situation well. At the risk of repeating him:

Unless you check a source diff of every package that gets installed
(and have the skills required to *understand* the source code), yes,
we have root on your machine. One could create a package update that
installed llama porn when you upgraded it... sooner or later, you
either need to do the work to satisfy yourself that you're not
installing anything malicious, or you need to trust that
Canonical/Ubuntu have done the work already. Actually, the same goes
for installing Ubuntu in the first place...

We have systems in place to make sure that only trusted people can
upload packages to Ubuntu, and packages regularly come under review,
so *hopefully* there are no surprises.

> Thomi:
>>> I assume by "Microsoftish" you're referring to the desire to make money from our software. If so, then yes, yes it is. <<
>
> http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

Hah. Not at all. Not even close. If you present an argument that
hinges on a noun like "microsoft-ish", don't be surprised when people
mis-interpret what you mean!

> It's pretty obvious that I'm not criticizing Canonical or the Ubuntu
> Foundation for having revenue models. I'm criticizing some of those
> revenue models for the same reason I criticize Microsoft revenue
> models, because I believe that they violate user rights and freedoms
> (to be fair, I probably should have said FaceBookish, but really
> that's neither here nor there).

Maybe I'm being particularly dense, but I really don't see how the
shopping lens attacks a users freedoms. Freedom to do what, exactly?
It's been widely publicised, and there's several ways of disabling the
feature. Users are free to run their operating systems without their
search terms being sent to Canonical. Where's the loss of freedom?

> Thomi again:
>>> (I'm not involved with Ubuntu One in any way, so I really cannot speculate as to the reasons the code isn't open - are you even sure that's the case? Did you look? Or are you just reporting what you read on the 'net?). <<
>
> Well, I did ask Tim Penhey about it during drinks after the PyCon, and
> he agreed it was the case, and defended it. So yes, I am sure, and as
> for the smear that I am uninformed because (like most of us) I use the
> net for much of my news and information:
> http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

OK, you got me there, sorry about that.

> Thomi:
>>> Buy me a beer sometime and I'll tell you about it. <<
>
> Since you're making a good living out of free software, and I do my
> work as an activist for free software, CreativeCommons, permaculture
> and various other causes without pay, to ensure my independence from
> particular vendors (actually I've had no income since October 2011),
> how about you buy me a beer and tell me about it? ;)
>
> Thomi (to Chris, but I think he though he was talking to me):
>>> You wouldn't talk about someone's creation to their faces in this manner, so don't do it online. <<
>
> That's an assumption on your part, and it's not true.

That's *exactly* why you're buying the beer. I don't mind talking
about all manner of things geeky, but if the conversation ended up in
the same tone as the original email, I'd leave. If you want to have
*that kind* of conversation with me, you better stump up with some
booze.


> Robin:
>>> It's not Amazon spyware. That's a total misrepresentation.
>
> It's called the Amazon shopping lens. According to the EFF, it sends
> your search queries to Amazon, and any other third party Canonical
> decides to include in the scheme; EFF quote from the Dash legal
> notice:
>
>>> 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?
>

The intent. The term 'spyware' implies malicous intent, and as such,
is a pejorative.

>>> Also, if you look in the "privacy" section of the settings, you can turn off all network related search
> functions. Cos it also searches youtube and stuff for you too... I
> removed it which is easy to do,
> unlike spyware.<<
>
> This is another standard defence of this package, and it's doesn't
> stack up. Any piece of spyware can be disabled or removed.

Once again - spyware implies malicious intent. Robin is suggesting
that since there's a very easy, obvious way to disable or remove the
software, calling it 'spyware' is inaccurate, at best.


You've done a very good job of pointing our the logical fallacies in
our replies to your original post. I can't help but feel that if the
original email were constructed with the same logical rigour the
conversation might have gone very differently.


--
Thomi Richards

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