Ubuntu "Spyware" Will Be Disabled In Ubuntu 16.04
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios
http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2016/01/ubuntu-online-search-feature-disabled-16-04
Unity's controversial online search feature is being disabled by default in Ubuntu 16.04 LTS, due for release in April.
Search terms typed into the Unity 7 Dash search bar will only show local file, folder and app results. No search terms will be sent to Canonical or passed to third party results providers, as is currently the case.
http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2016/01/ubuntu-online-search-feature-disabled-16-04
Unity's controversial online search feature is being disabled by default in
Ubuntu 16.04 LTS, due for release in April.
Search terms typed into the Unity 7 Dash search bar will only show local
file, folder and app results. No search terms will be sent to Canonical or
passed to third party results providers, as is currently the case.
"Ubuntu Gets Serious About Data Privacy" and blah blah blah. Perhaps this was their plan all along: You get really bad so that when you remove the horribleness people celebrate it and how great you are. Compare, for example conspiracy theories about New Coke.
I seriously doubt it.
Regarding New Coke, that formula was genuinely favored over both the classic Coke and Pepsi formulas in blind taste-tests, and people to this day enjoy the base of it (Diet Coke; New Coke just took this formula and changed aspartame to sugar). The only reason people were outraged over New Coke was because of a century of propaganda that made people feel strangely connected to Coca-Cola. You would have to believe that the Coca-Cola company is omniscient to be able to pull off a scheme to make this happen on purpose; no rational person would ever expect people to be outraged that you replaced a formula which is declining in popularity because it fails taste-tests, with a formula that wins all taste-tests. Snopes has a nice article about this:
http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/newcoke.asp
And this case with Unity? I don't think it's really comparable; Canonical didn't replace something with something else and then switch back, they added a feature and then later disabled it by default due to privacy complaints. What's more, Unity was already a thing that replaced something people were familiar with. But realistically, unless your omniscient, how could you possibly predict as a rational actor that adding in an anti-feature and then removing it later would result in a net increase in users? We don't even know that this is going to happen.
The thing is, this stunt could easily have cost them recommendations for Ubuntu, as well as users of Ubuntu. But why would you presume that ending it is going to cause more people to want to use or recommend Ubuntu after the fact? You also have to consider the time frame; this controversy started three years ago, and they are only changing the default settings 5 releases later. Even if you really thought that causing a controversy where you disrespect users' privacy and then fix the problem would cause people to start clamoring in support of you for some reason, if you were going to go this route, surely you would fix the problem immediately? As in, at least by the time Ubuntu 13.04 rolled out?
Furthermore, the post the OMG! Ubuntu! post referenced doesn't even mention privacy as a factor. The reason Will Cooke says they are turning it off by default is to ease transition from Unity 7 into Unity 8; basically, so that they don't have to worry as much about breaking Unity 7's online search feature during Ubuntu 16.04's support period.
It seems you've missed my point.
Sorry, what was the point I missed? Did I misread a sarcastic comment as serious?
Sorry, what was the point I missed? Did I misread a sarcastic comment as
serious?
It seems you've missed my point.
Now it's high fructose corn syrup instead of sugar. I wonder if they tweaked the formula when they switched?
I seriously doubt it.
Regarding New Coke, that formula was genuinely favored over both the classic
Coke and Pepsi formulas in blind taste-tests, and people to this day enjoy
the base of it (Diet Coke; New Coke just took this formula and changed
aspartame to sugar). The only reason people were outraged over New Coke was
because of a century of propaganda that made people feel strangely connected
to Coca-Cola. You would have to believe that the Coca-Cola company is
omniscient to be able to pull off a scheme to make this happen on purpose; no
rational person would ever expect people to be outraged that you replaced a
formula which is declining in popularity because it fails taste-tests, with a
formula that wins all taste-tests. Snopes has a nice article about this:
http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/newcoke.asp
And this case with Unity? I don't think it's really comparable; Canonical
didn't replace something with something else and then switch back, they added
a feature and then later disabled it by default due to privacy complaints.
What's more, Unity was already a thing that replaced something people were
familiar with. But realistically, unless your omniscient, how could you
possibly predict as a rational actor that adding in an anti-feature and then
removing it later would result in a net increase in users? We don't even know
that this is going to happen.
The thing is, this stunt could easily have cost them recommendations for
Ubuntu, as well as users of Ubuntu. But why would you presume that ending it
is going to cause more people to want to use or recommend Ubuntu after the
fact? You also have to consider the time frame; this controversy started
three years ago, and they are only changing the default settings 5 releases
later. Even if you really thought that causing a controversy where you
disrespect users' privacy and then fix the problem would cause people to
start clamoring in support of you for some reason, if you were going to go
this route, surely you would fix the problem immediately? As in, at least by
the time Ubuntu 13.04 rolled out?
Furthermore, the post the OMG! Ubuntu! post referenced doesn't even mention
privacy as a factor. The reason Will Cooke says they are turning it off by
default is to ease transition from Unity 7 into Unity 8; basically, so that
they don't have to worry as much about breaking Unity 7's online search
feature during Ubuntu 16.04's support period.
I am a translator!
The fact is they have been doing it for years and I agree with the radical stance of the excellent Stallman when he defines Buguntu as spyware. That OS **is** a spyware, the thing is turned on by default. Canonical is a corporation that cares only about money and it is not very different from Micro$oft or Crapple. They don't deserve your trust and people should not trust them. I will never trust them nor will I ever use any of the *untu variants or derivatives.
There are better options out there, much better, if security, privacy and ethics are concepts you value enough.
You lot have the Lens spyware to thank for getting me as a Trisquel user (now you know who to complain to ;)
>> That OS **is** a spyware, the thing is turned on by default. <<
I thought they had it turned off by default starting a few releases back, but so what? The fact that it's *installed* by default at all is what enraged me enough to format my Ubunical and find an alternative.
>> Canonical is a corporation that cares only about money and it is not very different from Micro$oft or Crapple. <<
Not to mention arrogant to the point of incompetent. Lots of people told them that keeping the back-end of Ubuntu One proprietary was turning people off being customers (not to mention breaking the "Ubuntu Promise"). I would have happily paid a little for storage in a freedom-respecting Dropbox alternative, to support the development of Ubuntu, but no. They wouldn't listen. In the end they had to shut the whole thing down.
I currently endorse Mint as a paddling pool for new GNU/Linux users, before they jump into the deep end of a FSF-endorsed distro, with the extra complications that can involve. I would consider endorsing Ubuntu for the same purpose, but not until Canonical hands over the keys to the kingdom (ownership of copyrights, trademarks etc) to the Ubuntu Foundation, and the Lens spyware is removed from the default install (minimum conditions, there may be others).
> I currently endorse Mint as a paddling pool for new GNU/Linux users
I would go against this suggestion, for two reasons: one, the Mint project develops a lot of software that never gets sent upstream, so it is effectively Mint-exclusive, which means Mint users who are used to this software will have a harder time migrating to another distro. Two, Mint doesn't even provide a mechanism to allow users to choose only libre software; everything, libre or proprietary, is shoved in a single repository. Worse, much of this proprietary software is installed by default even when it isn't necessary.
Despite the Unity problem, I think Ubuntu is still a better choice for an intermediate system to recommend to someone. Canonical at least conscientiously separates libre software (in the "main" and "universe" repositories) from proprietary software (in the "restricted" and "multiverse" repositories).
Thanks for the info.
>> the Mint project develops a lot of software that never gets sent upstream, so it is effectively Mint-exclusive, which means Mint users who are used to this software will have a harder time migrating to another distro. <<
I'm not sure what software you mean. All of the user-facing apps I've seen in Mint are common ones. In fact, in Mint 17.3 they are mostly the same ones used in Trisquel (LibreOffice, GIMP, GThumb, Pidgin, Transmission, Brasero), or variants thereof (eg FireFox). Where the choice of apps is different (eg VLC and Banshee instead of RhythmBox, Thunderbird instead of Evolution), I actually prefer the app chosen by Mint and use it (or a variant, eg IceDove) on Trisquel instead of the default apps.
>> Two, Mint doesn't even provide a mechanism to allow users to choose only libre software; everything, libre or proprietary, is shoved in a single repository. Worse, much of this proprietary software is installed by default even when it isn't necessary. <<
>> Despite the Unity problem, <<
As long as the Lens spyware is not installed, I don't see why Unity is a "problem". Now that it's maturing, it's a good desktop for late model hardware, licensed under GPLv3 and LGPL. I've personally met Unity developers who work for Canonical, and once they were pushed beyond the knee-jerk response of defending their employer's unpopular decision, admitted they agreed that building spyware into the Lens search was a bad move.
>> I think Ubuntu is still a better choice for an intermediate system to recommend to someone. Canonical at least conscientiously separates libre software (in the "main" and "universe" repositories) from proprietary software (in the "restricted" and "multiverse" repositories).
From the point of view of a new user transitioning off Windows, this is irrelevant. What they want is a computer that works at least as well as it did when it had Windows on it. You might now like it, but this is their priority in my experience.
If people have a good first experience of GNU/Linux by using a user-friendly disto like Mint, they are less likely to panic and go back to Windows (I've seen this happen when people are thrown in the deep end). Once they prove to themselves that GNU/Linux is a viable alternative to Windows, and get used to using it fulltime, then they are ready to be introduced to the differences between distros (including software freedom considerations), and encouraged to try Trisquel or another 100% free distro.
Helping people move towards to a free code software lifestyle is like helping people transition to a carbon-neutral lifestyle. None of us are all the way there yet, which shows that it's a transition, a journey of may steps, and people are more likely to take a new step with encouragement and assistance, not judgement, fear-mongering, and guilt-trips.
> I'm not sure what software you mean. All of the user-facing apps I've seen in Mint are common ones.
I'm talking about the software the Mint project develops. Software such as:
- Cinnamon
- mintMenu
- mintNanny
- mintInstaller
- mintUpdate
These are not "common" apps. With the exception of Cinnamon and mintMenu, none of them have been distributed for any system other than Mint and its few derivatives. This isn't an ethical problem, but it does make migration away from Mint more difficult.
> As long as the Lens spyware is not installed, I don't see why Unity is a "problem".
I was talking about the specific problem of Unity being configured, by default, to send all lens searches to Canonical. This is still the case until Ubuntu 16.04 (which hasn't been released yet).
> If people have a good first experience of GNU/Linux by using a user-friendly disto like Mint, they are less likely to panic and go back to Windows (I've seen this happen when people are thrown in the deep end). Once they prove to themselves that GNU/Linux is a viable alternative to Windows, and get used to using it fulltime, then they are ready to be introduced to the differences between distros (including software freedom considerations), and encouraged to try Trisquel or another 100% free distro.
But Mint isn't just "GNU/Linux". Mint is Mint. Mint does not do anything to help you transition to a completely libre system, at all, and even goes to lengths to make sure more proprietary software gets installed on your system (heck, there's a utility installed by default which searches for proprietary drivers, even when you don't need them, and tells you to install them). And everything about its look and feel is customized specially, up to and including specialized software.
For some reason, you seem to think that Mint is somehow more beginner-friendly, but Ubuntu makes it just as easy as Mint does to install proprietary software. At the same time, it makes it easy to not install proprietary software. This is important. Mint only does the former, and it does so with vigor, such that the latter becomes effectively impossible.
If your problem with Ubuntu is Unity's interface not being similar to Windows, you can recommend one of the many Ubuntu variants using different DEs, like Ubuntu MATE.
> I'm not sure what software you mean. All of the user-facing apps I've seen
in Mint are common ones.
I'm talking about the software the Mint project develops. Software such as:
- Cinnamon
- mintMenu
- mintNanny
- mintInstaller
- mintUpdate
These are not "common" apps. With the exception of Cinnamon and mintMenu,
none of them have been distributed for any system other than Mint and its few
derivatives. This isn't an ethical problem, but it does make migration away
from Mint more difficult.
> As long as the Lens spyware is not installed, I don't see why Unity is a
"problem".
I was talking about the specific problem of Unity being configured, by
default, to send all lens searches to Canonical. This is still the case until
Ubuntu 16.04 (which hasn't been released yet).
> If people have a good first experience of GNU/Linux by using a
user-friendly disto like Mint, they are less likely to panic and go back to
Windows (I've seen this happen when people are thrown in the deep end). Once
they prove to themselves that GNU/Linux is a viable alternative to Windows,
and get used to using it fulltime, then they are ready to be introduced to
the differences between distros (including software freedom considerations),
and encouraged to try Trisquel or another 100% free distro.
But Mint isn't just "GNU/Linux". Mint is Mint. Mint does not do anything to
help you transition to a completely libre system, at all, and even goes to
lengths to make sure more proprietary software gets installed on your system
(heck, there's a utility installed by default which searches for proprietary
drivers, even when you don't need them, and tells you to install them). And
everything about its look and feel is customized specially, up to and
including specialized software.
For some reason, you seem to think that Mint is somehow more
beginner-friendly, but Ubuntu makes it just as easy as Mint does to install
proprietary software. At the same time, it makes it easy to not install
proprietary software. This is important. Mint only does the former, and it
does so with vigor, such that the latter becomes effectively impossible.
If your problem with Ubuntu is Unity's interface not being similar to
Windows, you can recommend one of the many Ubuntu variants using different
DEs, like Ubuntu MATE.
Thanks for the info.
>> the Mint project develops a lot of software that never gets sent upstream,
so it is effectively Mint-exclusive, which means Mint users who are used to
this software will have a harder time migrating to another distro. > Two,
Mint doesn't even provide a mechanism to allow users to choose only libre
software; everything, libre or proprietary, is shoved in a single repository.
Worse, much of this proprietary software is installed by default even when it
isn't necessary. > Despite the Unity problem,
> I currently endorse Mint as a paddling pool for new GNU/Linux users
I would go against this suggestion, for two reasons: one, the Mint project
develops a lot of software that never gets sent upstream, so it is
effectively Mint-exclusive, which means Mint users who are used to this
software will have a harder time migrating to another distro. Two, Mint
doesn't even provide a mechanism to allow users to choose only libre
software; everything, libre or proprietary, is shoved in a single repository.
Worse, much of this proprietary software is installed by default even when it
isn't necessary.
Despite the Unity problem, I think Ubuntu is still a better choice for an
intermediate system to recommend to someone. Canonical at least
conscientiously separates libre software (in them "main" and "universe"
repositories) from proprietary software (in the "restricted" and "multiverse"
repositories).
You lot have the Lens spyware to thank for getting me as a Trisquel user (now
you know who to complain to ;)
>> That OS **is** a spyware, the thing is turned on by default.
"Canonical is a corporation that cares only about money and it is not very different from Micro$oft or Crapple."
If it wasn't for Canonical, you wouldn't have a good base for Trisquel. You would have to be pretty naive to think that you can sustain free/open source software without some sort of financial backing. For the longest time, Canonical was funded purely by Shuttleworth's personal money and they are getting to that point where they can try to make some of that money back with the phones and service contracts. The Ubuntu phones will probably fail, but at least there are some alternatives to Android and IOS.
I haven't received any messages from the mailing list for quite a while (as I
stated in another thread) :(, *except* that from time to time, I get some
messages from you adfeno or amenex, which seem to be the double posts you
mention. Do you post through the forum or the mailing list?
I am a translator!
I use Debian. If it wasn't for Debian you wouldn't have Buguntu and you wouldn't have Trisquel.
I don't care at all what Shuttleworth did in the past. That's not the point here. The point is that their privately developed OS is a spyware.
cheers
(t3g)
Its all relative. If you didn't have Red Hat (a corporation that makes money), you wouldn't have constant updates to Gnome for Debian. If you didn't have the Linux Foundation (which receives corporate funding), you wouldn't have the kernel for Debian. Desktop GNU/Linux was pretty rough until Ubuntu came along. You can deny that all you want, but that is the reality of things. Deal with it.
Ubuntu takes Debian and makes it a little bit more user friendly. You could even say that Ubuntu/Trisquel is more desirable than Debian for desktop use and servers due to the LTS releases having 5 years of support while the Debian releases crap out after 2 years. As for the "spyware", the online searches and communication is disabled by default in Ubuntu 16.04 and no information is sent to Canonical or Amazon. The version in Trisquel, if the team wanted to, could just make that switch to enable the searching disabled and have the servers the dash uses set to null.
Its just easy to point fingers (that's what most Free Software people do these days) instead of looking at the bigger picture and trying to make the changes yourself. I do realize I don't have the time and/or technical knowledge to build an OS, but I'm also not going to discredit Canonical for taking a chance in improving the landscape.
Linux was created in 1991 and liberated one year after that. The Linux Foundation exists only since 2007 so that's a bit of an exaggeration.
Canonical has done good things and bad things and should be lauded for the former and reprimanded for the latter.
There is more free software out there today than ever before in history, thanks to those lazy Free Software people.
We have more free software than ever thanks to a tiny percentage of what t3g might refer to as "free software people", because not many of them are active developers but rather users.
And a lot of them come frome open source camp (linux) or contribute for other reasons (see google's android).
We have more free software than ever thanks to a tiny percentage of what t3g
might refer to as "free software people", because not many of them are active
developers but rather users.
And a lot of them come frome open source camp (linux) or contribute for other
reasons (see google's android).
Linux was created in 1991 and liberated one year after that. The Linux
Foundation exists only since 2007 so that's a bit of an exaggeration.
Canonical has done good things and bad things and should be lauded for the
former and reprimanded for the latter.
Its all relative. If you didn't have Red Hat (a corporation that makes
money), you wouldn't have constant updates to Gnome for Debian. If you didn't
have the Linux Foundation (which receives corporate funding), you wouldn't
have the kernel for Debian. Desktop GNU/Linux was pretty rough until Ubuntu
came along. You can deny that all you want, but that is the reality of
things. Deal with it.
Ubuntu takes Debian and makes it a little bit more user friendly. You could
even say that Ubuntu/Trisquel is more desirable than Debian for desktop use
and servers due to the LTS releases having 5 years of support while the
Debian releases crap out after 2 years. As for the "spyware", the online
searches and communication is disabled by default in Ubuntu 16.04 and no
information is sent to Canonical or Amazon. The version in Trisquel, if the
team wanted to, could just make that switch to enable the searching disabled
and have the servers the dash uses set to null.
Its just easy to point fingers (that's what most Free Software people do
these days) instead of looking at the bigger picture and trying to make the
changes yourself. I do realize I don't have the time and/or technical
knowledge to build an OS, but I'm also not going to discredit Canonical for
taking a chance in improving the landscape.
I am a translator!
I use Debian. If it wasn't for Debian you wouldn't have Buguntu and you
wouldn't have Trisquel.
I don't care at all what Shuttleworth did in the past. That's not the point
here. The point is that their privately developed OS is a spyware.
cheers
Is someone working on the double posts?
I haven't received any messages from the mailing list for quite a while (as I stated in another thread) :(, *except* that from time to time, I get some messages from you adfeno or amenex, which seem to be the double posts you mention. Do you post through the forum or the mailing list?
Currently I'm posting using the forums since I'm somehow affected by
this problem.
I'll try to find some time to investigate this problem and see what I
can do to try to solve it, although I guess that this is a
server-side issue.
Testing, testing
I have no double post.
Ubuntu 16.04 LTS will be very bad version for people who want security and privacy
because 16.04 LTS will use "systemd" as default.
This "systemd" software suite controls very important processes, and a lot of profesionals ans Linux users are very
against this decision because "systemd" is not stable and is not good designed (from a security, privacy point a view)
So I think 14.04 is still a safer choice (for a base of Trisquel) then 16.04 because 14.04 doesn't use "systemd"
I hope Trisquel will think very carefully about this, because "systemd" is a NO GO for many GNU/Linux users
p.s: this "news" that "spaveware" will be dissable is just a way from Ubuntu to turn the negative attention of the systemd spyware as default, to something for positive....
Trisquel 7 is already based on Ubuntu 14.04... why would there be a new release of Trisquel based on an old Ubuntu release, the same one the previous Trisquel release is based on? That would be nonsensical.
systemd is not "spyware". It is not "unsafe". And it's not "a lot of profesionals (sic)" who are against it; it's a minority of die-hard traditionalists. All of the reasons stated against systemd are misguided (like calling a vast collection of programs that do individual tasks "monolithic", when this design is the exact opposite of what "monolithic" really means; or calling files made up of plain text "binary", when they are... well, plain text), and they have absolutely nothing to do with security.
systemd is free software: anyone claiming there is a spyware in it should point out where. Nobody did.
systemd is quite well designed, at least better than the other init systems that are available: that is why all major GNU/Linux distributions (including the Debian technical committee) have chosen it by default.
systemd is quite stable: Fedora has been running it by default since May 2011; Mageia, openSUSE and Arch since 2012. Debian stable has been using systemd by default for almost a year. The self-declared "Veteran Unix Admin" behind Devuan were forecasting a great exodus (of developers and users) from Debian towards their fork. It turns out it simply did not happen. According to Devuan's website, "the current release series is ALPHA2 meaning not ready for production" and version 1.0 should be released in... 2015.
Trisquel 7 is already based on Ubuntu 14.04... why would there be a new
release of Trisquel based on an old Ubuntu release, the same one the previous
Trisquel release is based on? That would be nonsensical.
systemd is not "spyware". It is not "unsafe". And it's not "a lot of
profesionals (sic)" who are against it; it's a minority of die-hard
traditionalists. All of the reasons stated against systemd are misguided
(like calling a vast collection of programs that do individual tasks
"monolithic", when this design is the exact opposite of what "monolithic"
really means), and they have absolutely nothing to do with security.
systemd is free software: anyone claiming there is a spyware in it should
point out where. Nobody did.
systemd is quite well designed, at least better than the other init systems
that are available: that is why all major GNU/Linux distributions (including
the Debian technical committee) have chosen it by default.
systemd is quite stable: Fedora has been running it by default since May
2011; Mageia, openSUSE and Arch since 2012. Debian stable has been using
systemd by default for almost a year. The self-declared "Veteran Unix Admin"
behind Devuan were forecasting a great exodus (of developers and users) from
Debian towards their fork. It turns out it simply did not happen. According
to Devuan's website, "the current release series is ALPHA2 meaning not ready
for production" and version 1.0 should be released in... 2015.
The similarity between Windows 10 being gratis (which is not)
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2957365/windows/why-windows-10-isnt-really-free-the-subtle-new-world-of-built-in-costs.html
& deactivating built in Spyware
makes me wonder
"Where's the backdoor?"
Another surprise is Cannonical has registered in
The Isle of Man Companies Registry, Annual Return 2005 for Company no. 110334C (non-distributable, available for a fee of £1.00)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canonical_%28company%29
The Isle of Man is nothing but Tax Evasion heaven(haven)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_haven
Name Number Inc/Reg Date Status Type Name Status
CANONICAL SERVICES LIMITED 003719V 25 Mar 2009 Live Limited by shares Current
CANONICAL LIMITED 110334C 5 Mar 2004 Live Private Ltd by Shares Current
CANONICAL SOFTWARE 018538B 21 Jul 2004 Live Current
Sorry, I don't see how this is related to functional data freedom, perhaps because I didn't read the references given.
Unless there is evidence to support that Canonical has obeyed orders from organizations which control this "tax heaven", then I can consider this as a red herring.
You say :
I didn't read the references given(ie the links above)
OK fine,the thread is about Ubuntu=Canonical Company
Canonical has registered 3 Companies in the Isle of Man
which is a recognized tax haven(read links)
My Question here is that this raises anEthical
question.
+ Is spyware an ethical practice?
DEFINITION of 'Tax Haven'
A country that offers foreign individuals and businesses little or no tax
liability in a politically and economically stable environment. Tax havens
also provide little or no financial information to foreign tax authorities.
Individuals and businesses that do not reside a tax haven can take advantage
of these countries' tax regimes to avoid paying taxes in their home
countries. Tax havens do not require that an individual reside in or a
business operate out of that country in order to benefit from its tax
policies.
These are non transparent business practices and i consider that this
information shows another aspect of the Ubuntu Canonical Company.
Unless there is evidence to support that Canonical has obeyed orders from
organizations which control this "tax heaven"
AFENO Companies do no get orders nor obey to organisations...they purposely
register in order to evade tax.
Quote:
There are many tricks used to shift money offshore, and a pinstriped army of
accountants and lawyers to help people do it. The commonest technique is one
called transfer pricing, employed by pretty much every multinational.
This is how it works. Let’s say a corporation picks and packs a
container-load of bananas in Ecuador, and it costs the company $1,000. It
sells them to a French supermarket for $3,000. Which country gets to tax the
$2,000 profit – France, Ecuador? The answer is, “Where the
multinational’s accountants decide.”
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jun/19/tax-havens-money-cayman-islands-jersey-offshore-accounts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxembourg_Leaks
Sorry, I don't see how this is related to functional data freedom, perhaps
because I didn't read the references given.
Unless there is evidence to support that Canonical has obeyed orders from
organizations which control this "tax heaven", then I can consider this as a
red herring.
You wrote :
I didn't read the references given(ie the links above)
OK fine,the thread is about Ubuntu=Canonical Company
Canonical has registered 3 Companies in the Isle of Man
which is a recognized tax haven(read links)
My Question here is that this raises anEthical
question.
+ Is spyware an ethical practice?
DEFINITION of Tax Haven
A country that offers foreign individuals and businesses little or no tax liability in a politically and economically stable environment. Tax havens also provide little or no financial information to foreign tax authorities. Individuals and businesses that do not reside a tax haven can take advantage of these countries tax regimes to avoid paying taxes in their home countries. Tax havens do not require that an individual reside in or a business operate out of that country in order to benefit from its tax policies.
These are non transparent business practices and i consider that this information shows another aspect of the Ubuntu Canonical Company.
You Wrote:
Unless there is evidence to support that Canonical has obeyed orders from
organizations which control this tax heaven
AFENO Companies do no get orders nor obey to organizations...they purposely register in order to evade tax.
There are many tricks used to shift money offshore, and a pinstriped army of accountants and lawyers to help people do it. The commonest technique is one called transfer pricing, employed by pretty much every multinational.
This is how it works Let’s say a corporation picks and packs a container-load of bananas in Ecuador, and it costs the company $1,000. It sells them to a French supermarket for $3,000. Which country gets to tax the $2,000 profit France, Ecuador? The answer is, Where the multinational’s accountants decide
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jun/19/tax-havens-money-cayman-islands-jersey-offshore-accounts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luxembourg_Leaks
"systemd is free software: anyone claiming there is a spyware in it should point out where. Nobody did."
That's the problem "systemd" is such a overkill and complex monster of a program, that nobody can actually control or check it what is going on...
So "spyware" can be injected very easy, and nobody will ever find it...
Why defend such a kind of a program, with these risks when freedom, privacy and security are two big reasons why people choose for GNU/Linux?
Oh, please. systemd is flat-out tiny compared to Linux, which actually is monolithic. I found an article from 2014[1] stating that systemd reached 550,000 lines of code. Linux 4.1 has over 19.5 million lines of code.[2] And as has already been said before, systemd is a collection of about 60 separate programs, so the average number of lines for a given systemd program is less than 10,000. Linux is about 2,000 times bigger than any given systemd component.
So, clearly, you need to stop using Linux. Also, you clearly need to stop using anything compiled with GCC, which is also much bigger than systemd; 7.3 million lines in 2012.[3] So I guess you'll have to switch to LLVM... or not. LLVM had nearly 2.5 million lines of code in 2013.[4]
In fact, I personally contribute to projects that have more code than systemd components do on average. Naev has about 280,000 lines of code, according to GitStats. Even Project: Starfighter is bigger than the average size of a systemd component! About 18,000 lines according to GitStats. I don't know if you've seen Starfighter's source code, but it's tiny.
If this amount of code is too much for you, you're basically going to need to create a new system from scratch. And you probably need to do it in Assembly.
[1] https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTY5NjM
[2] https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Linux-19.5M-Stats
[3] https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTE1OTg
[4] https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTU1MzY
So "spyware" can be injected very easy
Go ahead and talk about it once you have succeeded.
Oh, please. systemd is flat-out tiny compared to Linux, which actually is
monolithic. I found an article from 2014[1] stating that systemd reached
550,000 lines of code. Linux 4.1 has over 19.5 million lines of code.[2] And
as has already been said before, systemd is a collection of about 60 separate
programs, so the average number of lines for a given systemd program is less
than 10,000. Linux is about 2,000 times bigger than any given systemd
component.
So, clearly, you need to stop using Linux. Also, you clearly need to stop
using anything compiled with GCC, which is also much bigger than systemd; 7.3
million lines in 2012.[3]
[1] https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTY5NjM
[2] https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Linux-19.5M-Stats
[3] https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTE1OTg
So, clearly, you need to stop using Linux...
Luckily GNU/Linux gives me the freedom to decide this for myself ;-)
So when systemd will be rolled out I have the free choice to block it:
Just add in your /etc/apt/preferences,
Code:
Package: systemd
Pin: origin ""
Pin-Priority: -1
and I'm afraid I will be not the only one that will do this, "systemd" will separate the Linux community
into two (or more) camps...
That the freedom we have, and that's the freedom were "GNU/Linux" stands for
How's that supposed to be any kind of non-nonsensical response to onpon4?
It's not going to be such a thing unless there's uneaten kerstkrans in a cat's anus.
"systemd" will separate the Linux community into two (or more) camps...
How do you explain that Devuan is such a failure then? And where are the forks of Fedora/Mageia/openSUSE/Arch/etc. that adopted systemd by default more than three years ago?
And you actually meant GNU/Linux I believe: http://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html
- Inicie sesión ou rexístrese para enviar comentarios