Mistakes made and addressed
markshuttleworth.com
markshuttleworth.com
So kudos to him for having the balls to apologize. I accept that apology, and I think that a lot of people (including myself) have had some venomous things to say about him as well as Canonical which probably weren't fair. So we could probably all back off here and focus on the real issues.
...but...
He's still not talking about the two elephants in the room.
The Unity lens is fundamentally fucked up. It should be opt-in. Period. It's clearly an infringement on users' privacy and totally not in the spirit of libre software or Linux. I can't really trust Canonical - even though they've given us all so much - because of this issue. So long as they don't back down from this I'm going to look at everything they do with a critical and possibly cynical eye... it just clearly looks like they're selling out their users. It is really just sad to see them selling out to Amazon like this, and I wish it didn't have to be this way. I can't really fathom the amount of money Mark has spent on Ubuntu. I don't really know how he can make it work as a business. But the Amazon search in the lens just seems like a morally wrong and short-sighted way to go.
The second issue which we all need to address is Mir. The technical arguments are completely over my head, but I feel like Canonical hasn't fully made the case for why they've decided to fragment the community and do their own thing. This could just be me not understanding what's going on, but pretty much everyone who's developing this stuff seems to be on Wayland's side... why is that (and is that)? It's worth considering, but I feel like Canonical should be engaging the community, although with all the flaming that goes on I can see why they don't. We all want the best free software we can get, but some serious thought needs to be devoted to the ramifications and rationale for having two display servers.
So that's the end of this long rant - let me know what you think.
I think many people confuse the smart scopes as "selling out to Amazon." The lenses integrate a bunch of online sources, some are commercial, some are not. You can try it by hitting the super key and doing something like `wiki:metallica` or `code:discourse` (which searches github for projects, etc.). There's something like 100 sources for information in the dash. Amazon is just one of them.
It's closer to something like Watson for the Mac or the integrated search in Android. Unfortunately people just assume that Ubuntu has "amazon spyware". If you don't like the integrated online search it's one switch to turn it off and Unity will revert to offline-only searches in the Dash.
I'm not saying the lens search is an awful thing for everyone. What I'm saying is that they should have the button set to "off" by default, let people know what is available to them, tell them about how it works, and then ask if they want it or not. That's it. That's all it would take.
But even if they do that... isn't it still like the Java installer asking you to install an Ask.com plugin or something? I mean... that's kinda the lowest of the low for free (as in beer) software. Searching Wikipedia and for .git repos online is one thing. Ads are different.
READ THIS CAREFULLY, THIS IS NOT THE NORMAL YADDA-YADDA: If you enable Google Desktop Search this and this will happen, which is most likely what you want but you need to be aware of it. Do you want to enable?
So why are you typing them in the global search tab of the dash? Use the applications tab if you want to search for local applications, or the files tab if you want to search for local file. Super+A and Super+F pulls them up quickly.
Even if you are ok with it being opt-out, I think you would have to acknowledge that it isn't a very good business model. Linux users tend to be very conscious of their privacy rights.
Further even if you think it is ok to be opt-out, and think it is a legitimate way to monetize Linux users, you would acknowledge that Canonical have not handled any part of this story arch very well.
This has done more than enough damage, I think they should abandon it and find another way to fund their development.
They could win back a lot of support and sympathy with a mea culpa moment acknowledging at least one or more of: it wasn't a good idea, it wasn't implemented well, and we didn't handle the criticism properly.
Canonical COULD get desktop Linux into the mainstream, and stand a better chance than anyone else of doing so, but this is a massive shot in the foot. I give Ubuntu about 6 months of sticking with this policy before they realise they're slowly, irretrievably losing most of their customers.
I'd argue that if they are not going for the mainstream consumers (or enterprise), they might as well just close the company. For the reasons you mentioned, Linux users are quite high-maintenance and difficult to please. Evidence of this is how much Linux users tend to flame each other. I don't think Canonical really wants those extremely principled, very privacy-sensitive Linux geeks as customers. They would be behaving very differently to the criticism if they did.
With users storing more and more data in the cloud, having a global search box that searches for a particular picture not only locally, but also in my Facebook account, my Ubuntu One, my Flickr, my Dropbox, and my Google+ just makes sense.
Morally wrong would be if they were trying to hold my files for ransom, or produce buggy software to sell me upgrades. They're just making it more convenient for me to buy stuff if I want to. On the spectrum of things that are morally wrong, this is so far from being something to get really upset about.
PS: I have used Ubuntu on desktop and I have made modest (OEM price of Windows 7) donations.
1) Using Unity as opposed to another window manager AND
2) Using Ubuntu 13.04 or later and not the LTS AND
3) Not having opted out
Suspect the 0.1% is nearer 0.01% but we shall see...
What did they give us exactly? Unity? Upstart? I'm laughing.
It's really interesting how Canonical managed to promote Ubuntu. In the beginning, Ubuntu had nothing Debian didn't have. Nothing at all. It was just Debian with a brown theme. They claimed it was the most user friendly Linux distribution, and a lot of novices believed them not knowing better. Fake it 'till you make it.
Ubuntu's success comes from the free CDs. That was Mark's single good decision, but what a decision that was.
But no addressing of the privacy complaints the fixubuntu site had.
And explicitly only apologizing to non-technical critics just reinforces the validity of the complaints that http://blog.martin-graesslin.com/blog/2013/10/thoughts-about... had.
Isn't technical criticism what we want?
> Unless critique is focused on improving the software in question it is pretty much a waste of the time of the people who are trying to improve the software in question.
The criticism was not focused on improving the software in question (Mir). That could mean he regards it as waste of time - or if we do the additional step and realize we are talking about the _software_ solution of the display-server as a whole, it might be not meant by that.
I don't know.
22-Sept: Slashdot thread
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/09/22/1319216/ubuntu-will-n...
23-Sept: HN thread
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4558049
23-Sept: Shuttleworth blog post
that's a different concept than addressed.
The commands on the fixubuntu site are unnecessary, the simple toggle switch in the privacy applet solves the problem for people who want to disable online access in the global search box.
Ubuntu's little Amazon search wasn't very much compared to what Google, Facebook, or the NSA have been up to, but it was still a violation of the spirit of Linux and the unspoken rules and customs many people expect from OSS. For many people, this is a betrayal.
I mean goddamn Java from Oracle does this, and it leaves a bad taste in my mouth. It's all those little rejections which slowly wear you down, because it feels like you have to be constantly vigilant.
Ubuntu has a powerful position and a very high number of users in the Linux world. So, when it does something that people believe benefit itself at the expense of users, because it can be fairly sure those users will not flee to another distributes, people will be angry.
That is why people get angry at big large corporations. Because people are locked in, financially, technically, perhaps "merely" psychologically, they really don't like it when they feel abused. Yes, there is always know-it all-who claims its easy to change, but real people know its never ever that simple in reality.
What makes it worse is the knowledge that one is contributing to the power such corporations have by taking out contracts, licences or any other commitment not easily broken.
Some nuances: > Judge the policy. In this case Canonical has a trademark > policy that enables community members to use the marks > (good) and allows for satire and sucks sites even in > jurisdictions where the local law does not (great!). > Failing to have a policy would not be a bonus point in this review :)
In the US, anybody (not just community members) has a clear right to use the mark for satire and criticism. However, I'm sure there is some jurisdiction where this is not the case. Shuttleworth is not claiming that the license is needed in the US.
I was not aware of Shuttleworth's "tea party" comment; he was right to apologize for making it. Based on his post, he was making an analogy between certain types of unconstructive criticism of Ubuntu -- ad hominems, conspiracy theories, and racism -- and behavior he associated with the tea party. That behavior is, of course, not limited to just the tea party, nor is it true for everyone associated with the tea party.
[0] "Debian started arguing about whether it should remove all references to the distro-that-shall-not-be-named but then decided to argue about whether it should enforce its own trademarks which lead to an argument about… oh never mind."
It took him almost a month, then he uses another person's mistake as an example, and then in a small remark at the end, he apologizes.
I guess it is "better late than never". But it speaks about how little social skills some geeks have(he was programmer before billionaire).
That's not an apology for using the label, that's a [1].
Someone playing politics with an open source project or some unknown staffer who made a "mistake" - never the culture he built or his over the top response to said open source project not adopting the divine direction that he has taken.
Nope, not Mark Shuttleworth's fault.
First there's the repeated suggestion that Canonical is "generous" in allowing all kinds of use of its trademark, where however that kind of use, like satire, is protected by law. It's like saying "look how generous I am to stop for pedestrians at a red light".
Second there's the ludicrous analogy between the a bug in the code and the incident. A bug in code, no matter how bad, doesn't compare to an act of aggression aimed at a specific party. The internet did not overreact, it was Canonical that acted with disproportionate aggression. Shuttleworth fails to recognize that and still tries to cover it up by accusing his critics of being unreasonable. A better technical analogy would not be a bug, but deliberately installing malware.
This is not an apology. It's a defense combined with an underhanded attack an Canonical's critics.
I wasn't one of the "vocal non-technical critics". Now I am. This attitude stinks.
Satire is not categorically protected by law and the usage in question was not clearly satire by usual definitions. You should investigate matters more carefully before getting "pissed," because your information seems to be coming from questionable sources.
> Second there's the ludicrous analogy between the a bug in the code and the incident. A bug in code, no matter how bad, doesn't compare to an act of aggression aimed at a specific party. The internet did not overreact, it was Canonical that acted with disproportionate aggression.
All this was was words. To call a letter requesting that a site not infringe on Canonical's trademarks "an act of aggression" is a bit of an overstatement. Computer bugs have caused several orders of magnitudes greater harm.
Projects which were not official projects should not use the name in their url or their name. See getdeb/playbuntu as an example: http://blog.getdeb.net/2008/08/playbuntu-is-now-playdeb-beta.... fixbuntu couldn't be easily confused with an official ubuntu project, but still.
But projects like the (independent) local support forums sure were allowed to use the name, they got an official approval. See also the trademark license: http://www.canonical.com/intellectual-property-policy (though I'm annoyed by their use of "intellectual property", I tend to support Stallmans position on this one)
So his first paragraphs - how it is handled and that this is done in a good way normally - seem to be correct to me. Try to create a distribution of Windows (think reactOS), name it Windows something, and compare the reaction.
Especially when it's very doubtful there was infringement.
† It's worth noting that even officially sanctioned sites like UbuntuForums take care to explain that they are not Canonical.
If it would be infringement to use a trademark like that it would be impossible to write about any trademarked product.
Again, the word "Ubuntu" was the majority of the domain name and the majority of the page header, and in the header it was accompanied by the Ubuntu logo. Nowhere was any other branding used than Ubuntu's and he made no attempt to clarify that he was not associated with Canonical or Ubuntu. If that isn't enough to even be potentially confusing, what is the bar you think he'd have to clear? Does the page need to literally include the words "THIS IS UBUNTU SPEAKING. I AM HEREBY CLAIMING TO BE UBUNTU"?
> I dont think there was any doubt that the site was not a official ubuntu site
Please remember that there are many thousands of people who log into Facebook by Googling the phrase "Facebook login" and blindly clicking the first thing that comes up (http://readwrite.com/2010/02/11/how_google_failed_internet_m...). You are more technically savvy than most people, so the fact that this does not confuse you doesn't mean it doesn't confuse anyone.
> If it would be infringement to use a trademark like that it would be impossible to write about any trademarked product.
Not at all, for example, here's an Ars Technica review of Ubuntu: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/10/ubuntu...
Does the domain name substantially consist of the mark "Ubuntu"? No, and in fact it isn't even part of the domain name. Does the header at the top of the page say "Ubuntu"? No, it says "Ars Technica". Is the Ubuntu logo used as an identifying mark on the page? No, it isn't. This page has a clear identity besides "Ubuntu." It is clearly an article by Ryan Paul of Ars Technica about Ubuntu, and all of the Ubuntu trademarks are used illustratively, not as branding. The same is not true of FixUbuntu.
The second thing, did you read my link about fair use? I think this pretty much falls into it.
Most? Probably not. But I think the potential is there for many to do so.
> The second thing, did you read my link about fair use? I think this pretty much falls into it.
Yes, but as you have not explained why you think it applies here, I don't know what you expect me to get from that link. I have already explained why this use does not seem clearly nominative to me†, and he certainly wasn't using the term "ubuntu" in a generic sense.
† For starters, using the Ubuntu logo as the site's logo seems extremely superfluous. Do you believe visitors to the site will now have trouble telling what Ubuntu is since the logo has been removed?
The only part of the first section that wasn't "here's what happened" and "we're sorry, it was wrong" was detailing how generously they use their mark. I'm not trying to condescend, but just like patents and employment law, I think trademarks aren't as simple of an issue as they'd seem. I believe (with my layman understanding) that, in fact, the onus really is on the bearer of the mark to defend it. I think it was a tagline mentioned in the Wired article that spurred my interest (but -- surprise -- can't find it anymore), but that was a detail that I was interested in knowing. I think that's pretty impressive.
> Second there's the ludicrous analogy between the a bug in the code and the incident. A bug in code, no matter how bad, doesn't compare to an act of aggression aimed at a specific party. The internet did not overreact, it was Canonical that acted with disproportionate aggression. Shuttleworth fails to recognize that and still tries to cover it up by accusing his critics of being unreasonable.
This is an extreme reaction. I don't see a notice of misuse of a trademark as an act of agression, rather business in the globalized world. Is it possible forcible purging is Canonical's M.O. and it's just bad luck that they got caught this time? I guess so, but hey -- that's what the courts are for, right?
This is not an excuse and reflects poorly on all management when you throw the new guy under the bus. The only response to this[1] is "I" not "the new guy". You are the captain of the ship and don't get to hide behind the new guy.
1) If there is legal consequences and not PR, then you probably shouldn't state anything about what happened inside and should only speak the absolute truth or the parts your lawyer let's you.
| I made a mistake myself when I used the label “open source tea party” to refer to the vocal non-technical critics of work that Canonical does
He's still sticking with labelling vocal technical critics as the open source tea party. Just read it carefully once again.
| That was unnecessary and quite possibly equally offensive to members of the real Tea Party (hi there!) and the people with vocal non-technical criticism of work that Canonical does
| Please accept my apologies if you have been a vocal non-technical critic of Canonical’s software and felt offended by the label
Well this non-apology apology completely insults the intelligence of anyone reading it.
Edit: Formatting
Clearly, he didn't address anything. He just backtracked. This isn't about the Ubuntu logo, as much as Shuttleworth wishes it to be.