Ubuntu Community Manager: RMS's Post Seems a Bit Childish To Me and spreads FUD | Hacker News Reader

Ubuntu Community Manager: RMS's Post Seems a Bit Childish To Me and spreads FUD

news.slashdot.org

44 pointscooldeal66 comments

This is one issue in which RMS is completely right. I don't know why Ubuntu thinks it can cynically sell it's users searches to amazon but I want nothing to do with it. Think of the dangers posed by this to human rights activists who chose linux as the safer OS.

For instance:

1. Consider a journalist who doing an investigative story on amazon's warehouse working conditions. The journalist has been given some internal documents used by amazon and happens to search for one of these documents. Amazon could detect that someone has this file and learn of the investigation.

2. Or someone has pirate a movie and searches for the file on their harddrive. Given certain search strings it should be possible for amazon to detect that this purpose engages in piracy. What is to prevent amazon from reporting this information to "The Authorities".

I hope someone develops an Ubuntu fork that doesn't have spyware (spyfree-ubuntu?).

FWIW, It's better to stick to the facts rather than spreading even more FUD - "sell it's users searches to amazon"

Ubuntu is not "selling" your searches to amazon. Ubuntu will only get paid any money if you click through, and purchase something from Amazon. Ubuntu is sending your searches to Amazon which may or may not be 'right', but they only get paid if you buy stuff.

I'd guess Ubuntu are desperate for revenue and have run out of other ideas.

Also FWIW, the number of people who use these desktop search things seems likely to be tiny. Particularly amongst those who use linux.

Do people here use desktop search on any OS?

I don't understandd how that can be a legitimate mindset for Canonical.

Ubuntu is on the verge of becoming the major player in the early-stage linux convert market. They have the best supported platform, the largest and most accepting community and userbase, and are beginning to branch out towards more traditional markets like gamers with the soon-to-happen inclusion of Steam.

It would seem a better move politically to make this feature either opt-out or opt-it, and not required.

I've used Ubuntu's dash search when looking for an app that's not readily available. Who keeps things on the desktop nowadays? :)

>Ubuntu is not "selling" your searches to amazon. Ubuntu will only get paid any money if you click through, and purchase something from Amazon.

They are selling click throughs and it is likely for such a system to work they need to send a search off to amazon (to see if it matches any products). Amazon would be insane if they didn't analyze and watch the searches that are being sent from ubuntu, even if no sale comes of it. Ubuntu makes money off of this process, I sure some of the value to amazon is just the search data.

I use my desktop search on osx near constantly. I used ubuntu's search just last night. I don't have data one way or the other, but it seems at least possible that many people use the search (if they didn't why would ubuntu care).

Isn't this whole issue moot considering that you can disable this feature of Ubuntu by running a one-line command?

No, it shows poor judgement on the designers. I can and will disable this feature, but I would not have know to disable this feature if there had not be all this noise made about it. What other "features" am I missing?

There are many different distros that use Ubuntu as their core, the most popular one being Linux Mint (Cinnamon), and last I checked it didn't include the Amazon stuff. Two other nice ones are Zorin OS (Windows 7-like) and Elementary OS (Mac OS X-like).

http://linuxmint.com

http://zorin-os.com

http://elementaryos.org

Your first point is interesting, but I'm no so sure about the second one:

Given certain search strings it should be possible for amazon to detect that this [person] engages in piracy.

Amazon does not see the search as coming from an individual. Rather, the Ubuntu servers act as an intermediary. All Amazon can see is "some unidentifiable Ubuntu user is searching for this". That's hardly something they could report to any authorities.

>All Amazon can see is "some unidentifiable Ubuntu user is searching for this". That's hardly something they could report to any authorities.

It's surprisingly easy to take anonymous search data and figure out who it is. You might remember the mess that happened when AOL released anonymized search data (hint:peoples identities were compromised). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOL_search_data_leak

Consider the simple example of files that are named after the person doing the search.

Anonymization of queries is really really hard and I see no system academic or otherwise that would protect users from being identified.

For instance if someone were to accidentally click on a link to an amazon product and they had an amazon account it would immediately link the person and the query. Someone downloads a movie, searches for it to find it and then accidentally mistakes the amazon link for the pirated movie.

Any risk is increased by sloppy implementation. For example, every single keystroke is being sent over HTTP without encryption. (http://www.outflux.net/blog/archives/2012/11/09/product-sear...)

Today, if you want to de-Amazon Ubuntu, it's not just the shopping lens you have to disable, you should also remove Unity web app integration. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4888234)

If it gets to the point where you have to run a shell script to remove the 'spyware' (for lack of a better word), Ubuntu will have a real marketing problem on its hands.

Actual link rather than to Slashdot discussion:

http://www.jonobacon.org/2012/12/07/on-richard-stallman-and-...

The problem for me is that isn't addressed by this is the decision to make it default on in Ubuntu. That failure of judgement* means that I can't trust them not to change something else that I have to notice and find out how to easily disable. Easy to turn off is not good enough for such a feature.

Edit to add: Basically I think RMS is right about this one (as he often is) although in many cases I make compromises that he would find wholly unacceptable.

* It might be ethics but I would give Canonical the benefit of the doubt on that one.

I think I've written this before, but: this feature would go nowhere if it was disabled by default. If you want to know whether mainstream users will or will not like it, you can't stick it in some obscure alpha (they'll never test it), and you can't make it optional (only a few percent will ever come across the tick box at all).

So yeah, I don't like this feature either (for all the reasons RMS pointed out), but I don't see how otherwise they could have tested it. Maybe not a failure of judgement then, but rather choosing innovation over privacy?

(Note the 12.10 betas also had all these queries going over the network in plain text... so I kind of see the whole experiment as taking the "move fast and break things" mantra taken to the extreme)

Opt in doesn't necessarily mean hidden in settings. For this feature it probably should be a pop up that appears the first time each user enters a search request before it gets sent over the network.

The question could have a positive spin "Would you like to see network enhanced search results?" with details and privacy policy links. Options of "Yes", "Ask later" and "Disable enhanced search". They could even put an "Are you sure?" If disable is selected.

This seems bizarre in retrospect, but somehow none of the above had occurred to me before. Thanks for taking the time to type it and enlighten.

The post speaks of facts and then states:

The goal of the dash in Ubuntu has always been to provide a central place in which you can search and find things that are interesting and relavent to you; it is designed to be at the center of your computing experience.

So, did they conduct a survey to check that majority of Ubuntu users thinks that getting Amazon affiliate links is 'interesting and relevant'?

I'd wager that a majority dislikes the integration of Amazon affiliate links. If so, Jono, is not providing factual information either.

Of course, we all know ulterior motive is generating more income. Then, at least be honest (or silent) about it.

[1] Yes, I know, you can use Super+a, but most users will just click the Dash or press the Super key. It's the most obvious thing to do.

It's difficult to see where the "uncertainty" or "doubt" that RMS is alleged to be spreading is: as far as I can tell, both he and Jono agree on the facts, they just disagree on the fear. Accusing RMS of spreading FUD seems a tad alarmist.

It is interesting to examine the claim that the Amazon search should be included because it would provide interesting and relevant things - unlike something like Google, Amazon's search engine has a single goal in life, to sell things. Whether users like the integration or not, even the more fundamental question seems to want answering: I cannot think of a time when I've been searching for stuff, locally or online, and thought, "You know what, I wish Amazon results were integrated into this - that'd be great!".

> unlike something like Google

Please tell me you are joking. Google exists only to sell your eyeballs and whatever it can figure out about you.

FFS, you know damn well what the post meant. Your comment adds nothing to the discussion.

I'm not at all sure that I do know. I believe part of the implied message in this post is that Google is not motivated by a cynical profit motive to the same extent that Amazon is. That is highly dubious to me. Sending search queries to Google may very well be both more useful and less surprising to end users, but it is NOT "less evil". Either and both would be significant privacy violations.

I am now not sure that is implied by the message at all. In which case you would be mistaken about me knowing damn well what it meant. I have no idea what other interpretation of the Google reference would make sense.

Either way, your hostility is unwarranted and adds nothing to the discussion.

No, that wasn't the point I was making at all.

Google, as a search engine, is a generic "find the most relevant thing based on the keywords I provide". Amazon, as a search engine, is closer to "find the things I would be most likely to buy based on the keywords I provide". The two functions are entirely different.

I didn't make any comment about it being "less evil" (was that intended to be a quote?); I was making a comment about the intended function of the service. I could have substituted in DDG or Yahoo! or Bing and the point would be the same; equally, it makes as much sense to provide Amazon-based results to me as it would do to provide results from Target or Walmart.

No, of course you didn't say anything about it being less evil; but that is what Richard Stallman is talking about. So your position is that this is a usability issue with the "feature"? Your comment is baffling to me now.

Tech products and services -- free, private, profitable: pick two.

If 'compiled' doesn't belong to any of these categories: get Red Hat EL. ;)

All source is available for RHEL -- hence the existence of nearly identical clones CentOS (http://www.centos.org) and Scientific Linux (https://www.scientificlinux.org/). The only differences for the clones being the removal of trademarked branding elements.

That was exactly my point. RHEL is free, profitable, and you can have your privacy ;).

Jono Bacon's little essay convinces me that RMS is right, and I plan to wean myself from Ubuntu and find another distribution to install on my laptops -- and I will cease my practice of recommending Ubuntu to people starting out with linux.

This is entirely because Bacon's reply to RMS fails to address his criticisms. He ignores RMS's specific points, instead going on about how great Ubuntu is, delving into RMS's character and personality, and attacking straw men, mainly the notion that the problem arises from Ubuntu's policies not being precisely in alignment with RMS's preferences.

All of this convinces me that Canonical has no answer to RMS's challenge, and that they have indeed become purveyors of spyware; in addition, that it is likely to become gradually more abusive with time, so better to get out now.

    > These statements simply generate fear, uncertainty,
    > and doubt about Ubuntu;

    > This just seems a bit childish to me.

I once read an article that said you should be very careful of anybody who can disagree vehemently and convincingly with another person's point without ever categorically accusing them of being wrong.

I think it applies here, because RMS is right about this one.

  > "I once read an article that said you should be very careful of
  > anybody who can disagree vehemently and convincingly with another
  > person's point without ever categorically accusing them of being 
  > wrong."

In fact you should seek out such people, because in matters of opinion that is the exact definition of someone with whom you can have a civilised discussion.

I think you missed the point entirely. The assumption was that the matter under discussion can be argued and it is possible to determine what is correct.

Actually, I came away confused, because he never stated "This is exactly what Ubuntu does, and here are my reasons for why it is okay."

I disagree with your point - in fact, I think you are wrong. But we can still have a civilized discussion. My reasoning is that when facts and disagreements are not clearly stated ("here are the facts; the other party came to conclusion X, but I come to conclusion Y for these reasons"), it's easy to get bogged down in points that are not central.

Good point. In fact, Jono says this:

    > With this in mind, just because someone may have differing
    > views to mine on the implementation of privacy in software 
    > doesn’t mean they are wrong. Likewise, just because my 
    > views may differ to theirs doesn’t mean I am wrong. We are 
    > all different and we all manage our information and our 
    > expectations around information sharing in different ways.

I kind of regret the way I said what I said above now, but I still think Jono has failed to address my privacy concerns. From the point of view of somebody who is worried about the privacy implications of the Amazon integration, all the post really does is to say "Well I'm not worried". It does say it in quite a reasonable and comforting way though.

> In his reply, Jono claims that Stallman's views on privacy do not align with Canonical's

That's pretty obvious. The question is every user needs to ask himself is precisely this one, "do my views on my privacy align with Canonical?"

Ubuntu should have just kept quiet (even if the post does not necessarily represent the views of Ubuntu, Canonical or any others involved in this project, forever more, IDST; he still is a public presence for it), and let it burn itself out. It wouldn't have gone away, not completely, but they've made the issue bigger now.

RMS says things, that's what he does. He's committed to a very specific path in life and that's okay. Ubuntu as a project needs to have a revenue stream to survive, and from what I've read Canonical makes some reasonably decent money from private enterprise and so on, so they probably don't need the revenue stream all that bad.

I personally have no issues with the idea of affiliate links being embedded, it actually sounds like a nice idea to hack into Alfred so when I want a movie it'll check Amazon/iTunes/so on for it, but it needs to be made clear.

For those concerned about this being a HUGE security breach, have you audited the source? It's available online. Does it confirm your suspicions that Amazon is tracking everything search? The code is there, so if it's acting as spyware it's hardly the most secretive way of doing it.

Yeah, this is one of those things where unless there is a major factual error, they are better off just letting it blow over.

(Speaking purely in terms of PR strategy, I don't know anything about Ubuntu or this issue.)

How can auditing one copy of a program prove what Amazon chooses to record with another copy?

>RMS says things, that's what he does.

I see. And probably without a license... Tisk, tisk.

Well, auditing it would show what data is being sent where, and when. Unless of course we assume that the source published for th global search lens is in some way not what's being shipped. That'd be a whole other kettle o fish.

I think it's pretty obvious what it sends - or rather, the obvious stuff is enough to bother some people when the feature defaults to on.

They're saying they'd search for "Joe Random - Resignation Letter - FooCorp.doc" trying to find the latest copy they'd written and when that was sent to Amazon as a product search it would leak private information.

So I take it you've reviewed the source? Sat and watched a packet stream? The thing is I've heard lots of complaints about it infringing privacy, but not from someone who's also reviewed the source, it's all just second hand information.

Did you read my post? Even the basic text it sends is enough to be a concern for some.

Are you saying you doubt it does this?

Dear Jono,

It may very well be that RMS's comments were over the top but please check the numbers on DistroWatch - those numbers will testify that Canonical is not making the right decisions, at least not on the desktop, and RMS's sentiments are quite likely shared by plenty of your former users.

Distrowatch is probably the least accurate measurement of usage numbers that exists. The fact that Mint is beating Ubuntu on Distrowatch is a result of a lot of Mint users saying "Hey, let's keep hitting Distrowatch so we make sure we beat Ubuntu on Distrowatch" and has nothing to do with actual use of the OS.

And to some extent I would think Canonical is okay with that. A cull of their core users expecting an unencumbered free tool is probably in their best interests. People who are willing to trade something of monetary value arguably should be the focus of any business.

Also, don't leave here thinking that DistroWatch is a good metric of mindshare among Linux users...

"The DistroWatch Page Hit Ranking statistics...show the number of times a distribution page on DistroWatch.com was accessed each day, nothing more."

http://distrowatch.com/dwres.php?resource=popularity

There is a problem with "A cull of core users"

Before this point, Canonical sold support as their approach to monetizing their investment in creating a distribution. Data collection, applying analytic, and selling user data is incompatible with both the free-to-use Ubuntu community, and the enterprise customers.

Canonical has fundamentally changed what the Ubuntu brand means, and that is reflected in people finding that good alternatives exist.

In other words then, Canonical has modified their business plans with respect to Ubuntu, probably because the previous revenue model didn't work. What makes these so-called "alternatives" so much more viable? How will they succeed where Canonical failed?

Great reply in the comments from Ubuntu users here: http://www.jonobacon.org/2012/12/07/on-richard-stallman-and-...

you just posted a link to the story itself. check your url...

This, unfortunately, is a common GNOME-like mentality. Our users aren't right, we are. We don't need to listen to strong criticism, because we are making awesome things.

Seriously, some of these guys live in a bubble.

GNOME isn't Ubuntu.

No, but Jono Bacon was extremely entwined in GNOME for a long time.

Moreso KDE though, surely?

I had never heard of Jono until he was working for Canonical.

That doesn't negate my point in any way.

Well, I'm a former GNOME and GTK+ developer and a former Canonical/Ubuntu developer and I had never noticed him being involved in GNOME outside his Canonical duties.

Of course you could still be right about him being entwined in GNOME though, but I don't think you are.

He was a regular on Planet Gnome, and was quite involved in Guadec. Why don't you ask him?

I'm not sure what there is to ask. I was mostly commenting on how you worded that, I suppose. It kind of read as though you think Jono was, for a time, deeply involved in Gnome or something, and I can't think of any way that he's really contributed to Gnome except to voice his opinion on things people are doing. I don't think being on Planet Gnome and going to Guadec is a good measurement of how entwined someone is in Gnome. Mark was on Planet Gnome for awhile too, and he goes to Guadec usually. The first time I met him was at Boston Summit. I never would have considered Mark deeply entwined in Gnome though, and I don't think most people would.

Then again, I'm not really involved in Gnome anymore either. So maybe I'm totally wrong and he's doing all kinds of stuff for Gnome now and I just don't pay attention anymore. But my experience working at Canonical was that it's more difficult, not easier, to stay involved in upstream projects.

For future reference, your GP post would have made a lot more sense if you had included that little fact.

Canonical isn't Ubuntu either, they just happen to own the brand, but not the community.

I've been a Ubuntu fanboy for years. When my old desktop running XP completely failed, my older brother installed Ubuntu on it and I fell in love with it.

A few months ago I did a clean install of Ubuntu 12.04 on my netbook that had previously been running Windows 7. Unity didn't bother me. What bothered me was how much unnecessary software was installed. I felt like I had no control. After only a few weeks of using Ubuntu I decided to install Arch Linux for the first time. I haven't looked back since.

I think people underestimate just how good it feels to be in complete and utter control of your system. I know exactly what is installed on my system, how to fix it if something goes wrong and exactly what I'm getting myself into when I upgrade. I felt like I had that power back when I was running Ubuntu 8.04, but I was slowly losing it with each new release, and that's why I stopped using Ubuntu.

We're all capable of configuring our chosen distro in such a way that it's comfortable for us to use. We're all also capable of applying our values when choosing that actual distro (in the same way that Richard Stalman does).

Having said that, and i don't mean to insult anyone here, but why are we actually going to go directly into the meta of discussing other people's opinions here?

Why is this discussion relevant here on Hacker News? I don't see this as thought provoking, rather i see it as an open invitation for everyone to contribute to a perverted gossip column.

Resistance to this design decision by Canonical should have been intense when it was announced, and not when someone with an audience decided to state their opinion.

Again, this is in no way meant to insult anyone currently involved in talking about this. As much as everyone here has the opportunity to state why they support either side of the issue, it's also important to make opinions on it's context.

Resistance to this design decision by Canonical should have been intense when it was announced, and not when someone with an audience decided to state their opinion.

It probably should have been. I don't use Ubuntu, and I had never heard of the issue at all until Richard's article. Knowing about the issue doesn't have an immediate practical impact on me, but I will likely make it a point to avoid Ubuntu in the future.

Actually multiple venues talked (sometimes critically) about this problem, Mark Shuttleworth made a blog post about it, criticizing the critics. So it's really nothing new.

I love when a post starts or ends with "This is a personal post and does not neccessarily represent the views of XXX".

I know even before reading it that their post will be in the interest of their employer 99% of the time. I'm not against it sometimes there are insightful posts but there are also not very objective by definition.

It's funny how the acronym FUD has such an extremely negative connotation that the entire discussion is whether something is FUD or not rather than asking if there is any legitimacy to the FUD.

I mean let's be honest here: FUD is RMS's bread and butter. But just because FUD is his tactic doesn't mean he doesn't have legitimate concerns. Certainly he's operating at a much more realistic level than the Microsoft marketing FUD of decades past that was so completely full of bullshit that it deserved little more than acronymical dismissal. I'm sure it's pretty galling to be on the receiving end of one of RMS's absolutist rants, but no matter how over the top or strongly worded they are, they can't be made to go away with a sober appeal to level-headed moderation. Regardless of the words we choose, Canonical's actions are cause for concern.

This time I completely sided with RMS. Sorry, It is not Childish.

Well that seals it. We had the same crap from shuttleworth.

Don't piss of your customers canonical. Unlike windows, there are plenty of compatible alternatives.

how do you disable it, that's the question.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com