It's always interesting to read RMS' posts, though I don't agree with a lot of them.
In this case, he's got a very valid point (I disabled the adverts on my Ubuntu install), but he uses such over the top language that it makes much of his writing seem like a parody.
Ubuntu sending all desktop searches to Amazon by default (even if it's via a proxy) isn't cool, and isn't what most users would expect, but I don't believe screeds like this aren't going to make Canonical think again.
What was "over the top" about the linked piece? It's got to be the most even-tempered thing I've ever read from RMS. Did you actually read TFA before posting this comment?
He didn't assert anything about peoples associations. He asserted that that there is an association between proprietary software and malicious treatment of the user. Now knowing a little about what RMS regards as malicious that is undoubtedly true in terms of the lack of freedoms.
Even on a narrower definition of malicious if it includes user tracking/monitoring then large amounts of proprietary software can be regarded as malicious. I would narrow my definition of malicious a little more personally but there are large amounts of fairly malicious software out there, very little of it Free software.
You might need to pick another line to take apart.
And I said that I would narrow my definition of malicious a little more so I basically agree although I should have mentioned informed consent and whether it is opt in or out.
I believe you're wrong. The vast majority of "linux users" don't buy into RMS's particular ideology. RMS proactively describes the differences between the OpenSource and "Free Software" philosophies.
Most Linux users might not buy into a boycott of Ubuntu -- in that sense they reject RMS's ideology.
But I think few would argue that proprietary software does tend towards bullshit -- the very DRM and the like that RMS is calling malicious. They might not go around calling it malicious, but they wouldn't consider RMS's attitude there extreme, just the actions he advocates.
Still disagree. I think your definition of "linux users" tends to be more desktop-oriented, where there is more of a philosophical bent towards an RMS ideology. My definition of "linux users" would include developers and sysadmins that are using it as a server, and use it for more practical reasons.
And malicious has strong connotations..e.g malware, spyware, which most "linux users" wouldn't necessarily apply to developers of legit proprietary software.
So you dismiss RMS's arguments just because he doesn't talk and write the way you think he should? Talk about derailment, by this logic you don't have to agree with anyone or anything just as long as you feel they aren't nice or polite or well spoken enough.
just because he doesn't talk and write the way you think he should
If he can't communicate his ideas in a calm and balanced way, perhaps those ideas don't have as much value as he thinks they do. Sorry, but method of delivery counts for a lot.
Jeez you are so emotional, you should just calm down. If you can't say anything nicely, you shouldn't say anything at all. Who believes an angry ranter like this anyway.
> If you ever recommend or redistribute GNU/Linux, please remove Ubuntu from the distros you recommend or redistribute.
Whether or not I agree with it I found it quite calm and balanced (just like the phrase quoted above). Note there are no insults or exclamation points.
Perhaps his writing isn't the issue here, but your perception.
No, what I agree is his overall vision on free software. I don't care how he talk and write, but I can't agree with the way he speaks of his opinion (and maybe many others') as if it were a hard fact. Its not a matter of being polite or not, its more about the fact that basing an argument on opinion is not really credible.
Its a very loaded and picturesque description to use, but is it an wrong description?
The goal of book burning is to remove information, private owned books in this case, from the public by destroying them. While one could smash them and disintegrate them through the use of massive force, burning was the practical tool used.
If kindle suddenly create a goal of removing information from the public, in this case some private owned books, and goes through this act by destroying the information from private people own devices, doesn't that act align itself perfectly with book burning, through instead of using fire, they used electronic means.
Sure, its not something I would like to see on Wikipedia. Its not neutral, and there are better, impartial wording one could use to describe, but is it wrong to use in a blog?
> doesn't that act align itself perfectly with book burning,
> through instead of using fire, they used electronic means
If that was the primary purpose of Kindle, you'd be right. However, for that to be true you constructed a scenario which is opposite to the real and intended use of Kindle.
Of course its not the primary purpose of the Kindle to destroy information. They have however made it their goal once before in regard to one book.
The original blog post could be interpreted as claiming what the kindles main purpose is, but I doubt RMS would defend such interpretation. A one time act, while notable, does not equal primary purpose, and he and everyone else knows that.
I found it merely confusing. In the context of computers, "burning" means "saving to disk" (as in "rip, mix, burn" or "we burn the documents as a secondary cache"), which is exactly something that Kindle tries to make harder.
I think you may intend somewhere towards the 3(b) definition but even that doesn't quite fit. Maybe another dictionary has a definition for your intended meaning.
It's actually not rhetoric - it's a play on Bradbury's comment about e-readers "smelling like burned fuel" (read Fahrenheit 451 for the background of this).
I own a Kobo, but it's been seriously hacked by myself so it doesn't call home and only talks to SD cards. It also only gets non DRM epubs on it. Anything more would be considered virtual book burning on my part as well.
It's actually not rhetoric - it's a play on Bradbury's comment about e-readers "smelling like burned fuel" (read Fahrenheit 451 for the background of this).
Well, it's probably used for surveillance, though?
Not in the 'what did John search for yesterday' sense. But I'm pretty sure it's used for 'what are people searching for this week'.
He definitely got the point across to me! I had been considering installing Ubuntu desktop, but this article definitely made me think twice. So, I'd say the article had its intended effect.
That being said, reading the other comments here, it looks like there's more nuance in what is actually happening here. This is Ubuntu Desktop using the global search, which sends search queries to a central server. While I don't appreciate that either, at least it's not what I had thought from reading the headline that it was sending all local file searches to a server. So, it's a particular behavior, but still, Ubuntu should provide transparency as to what is happening, and even though the user can turn this feature off, (Stallman even states as such: "Ubuntu allows users to switch the surveillance off") the default on behavior is what I sense he is objecting to.
Perhaps a suggestion for a more nuanced title (which might not have the same dramatic effect, but would be more accurate): "Ubuntu Desktop Global Search sends Queries to Central Server, and shares with Amazon, by Default!"
There is local search - either by turning off remote results, or using the files/application lenses (Super+F/A). But the default search box does a global search.
As someone who nods my head in agreement to RMS most of the time (although I use proprietary software extensively), when I actually went to see him speak in person, I ended up feeling that he had weakened his case with the way he presented himself.
In this case, he's got a very valid point (I disabled the adverts on my Ubuntu install), but he uses such over the top language that it makes much of his writing seem like a parody.
Ubuntu sending all desktop searches to Amazon by default (even if it's via a proxy) isn't cool, and isn't what most users would expect, but I don't believe screeds like this aren't going to make Canonical think again.