No other distro has managed to even come close to them.
>>54121606
win what
>>54121730
Market share on desktop and servers
>>54121972
I don't know who told you that horse shit on the server market but you're wrong.
>>54121606
Technically it's Debian that won, because Ubuntu is wholly dependent on Debian, and if they vanished so would Ubuntu. Ubuntu is Debian, you can tell this because Ubuntu uses .deb packages.
So please, don't think that anyone has won anything, because all distributions work for one another, and benefit from one another in one way or another.
>>54121997
PROOF:
>Ubuntu Linux continues to dominate OpenStack and other clouds
>The previous survey showed Ubuntu OpenStack at 33 percent of production clouds. Ubuntu has seen almost 67 percent growth in an area where Ubuntu was already the market leader. These numbers are a huge testament to the community support Ubuntu OpenStack receives every day."
>Ubuntu isn't just popular with the OpenStack crew. The Cloud Market's latest analysis of operating systems on the Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud (EC2) shows Ubuntu with just over 215,000 instances.
Ubuntu is followed by Amazon's own Amazon Linux Amazon Machine Image (AMI), with 86,000 instances. Further back, you'll find Windows with 26,000 instances. In fourth and fifth place, respectively, you'll find Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) with 16,500 instances and then CentOS with 12,500 instances.
http://www.zdnet.com/article/ubuntu-linux-continues-to-dominate-openstack-and-other-clouds/
>>54122108
>OpenStack
>All the server market.
Learn to read nigger.
>>54122040
No. Debian doesn't have any of the tools that made Ubuntu popular.
>>54122172
Course it does, Ubuntu was popular long before Unity. The reason Ubuntu became popular was because it was premade, and was easy to use. it used Gnome2 and the Gnome2 config basically made it very very simple to use, it came with drivers ootb. It became popular for it's simplicity, not because of anything it has in it now.
Nowadays it is actually losing users to Linux Mint (a lunix that I have always felt was superior)
Because it works and is easy to install
>>54122145
[X] TOLD
[X]REKT
[X]TRIGGERED
[X]TYRANNOSAURUSREKT
>10 Reasons Why Ubuntu Is Killing It In The Cloud
http://www.forbes.com/sites/janakirammsv/2016/01/12/10-reasons-why-ubuntu-is-killing-it-in-the-cloud/
>>54122269
Ubuntu became popular because it was good and easy to install.
Mint is shit. Ubuntu MATE killed any reason for anyone to continue using Mint and it's outdated insecure packages.
Pic related
>>54121606
well to start with, they sent me a free disk
(in fact it was 3, in a nice cardboard sleeve)
>>54121606
to find a svelte ubuntu on the raspberry pi3 (mate)
and everything is the same
Ubuntu won because contrary to what the most vocal Linux say, people generally just want a system that works with minimal fuss and with good default choices.
Ubuntu made good default choices and then made it easy to add software. Apt-get was better than any of the other package management stuff at the time.
Mark Shuttleworth spent millions of his own personal money, not investor money, on sending hundreds of thousands of 100% FREE CD copies of Ubuntu to anyone anywhere in the world 100% FREE of charge.
No individual has given more to making Linux popular and a viable easy to install desktop operating system than him. All these newfag ungrateful kids can eat a dick.
I remember all the reviews Linux distros used to get back in the day and reviewers always complained about how it would never go mainstream because it was too hard to install until Ubuntu changed that. Now these idiots want to take us backwards.
>>54122690
I would like to interject for a moment. The person that you are referring to as Mark Shuttleworth is actually Mark $huttlecock or as I have recently started calling him, Cock Mark.
Please try to use the correct next time you talk about this person.
>>54122902
t. C.U.C.K.
>>54122473
I was ordering discs before I even had a computer to install it on just in anticipation of something different from Windows. I think the first disc I ordered was 7.10? Great packaging and friendly marketing. I was sold. Still use it to this day after a time of distro hopping. "It just werks" isn't a meme, it's a foundation upon which Ubuntu was built on and it continues till this day.
>>54121606
because it just werks
>>54124526
These days, it's Ubuntu that anyone that wants to break into Linux looks to. It wasn't Fedora that Valve was pushing when it wanted to use Linux. Ubuntu has made installing software easier through so many routes. There's source, the now defunct Software Center, synaptic, .debs, good ol' apt-get, aptitude, ppa's and now snaps. Ubuntu keeps pushing Linux to be better and easier without sacrificing the power of the CLI. Ubuntu won and all other distros can pretty much go home, but use what you will and be grateful that Linus still has so much choice. Its a beautiful thing!
>>54122690
>we did all this good stuff for the world and whatever
>so now we get to spy on you
>you fucking owe us!
Nah, eat a dick.
>>54125685
>now we get to spy on you
Prove Ubuntu is sppying on ANYONE today!
>>54125725
How's that Amazon spyware going? Did they finally remove it?
>>54125735
yea
>>54125758
I doubt it. Got a citation?
>>54125735
It's going a million times better than the Windows 10 spyware, seeing as they're disabling the "spyware" on ubuntu. Is microsoft about to do that to?
>>54125771
I don't use Windows, so I couldn't give a shit less about what they are or aren't doing.
>seeing as they're disabling the "spyware" on ubuntu
Which shouldn't have been there in the first place. Also, citation needed.
>>54125791
The point I was trying to make subtly is that anyone that thinks it was "spyware" is fucking retarded..It's a fucking search bar that search the internet too, which could be disabled. That's not spyware and anyone that claims it is, is probably the same person that calls everything a "botnet"
>>54125765
http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2016/01/ubuntu-online-search-feature-disabled-16-04
>the loonix distro world is so fucking shitty Ubuntu is considered a success
>>54125805
Oh, nice. They finally bothered to remove the spyware that shouldn't ever have been there to begin with. They're such humanitarians.
Wonder what the next privacy issue will be now that they're in bed with Microsoft?
>>54125825
Somehow people are still so dense that they still use the word spyware for a online search.
>>54125765
Who the hell reads citations in 2016?
>>54122040
>and if they vanished so would Ubuntu
That's not how free software works. Canonical is significantly bigger than Debian's development. They would have no problems taking over if necessary.
It's just that they also have no problems basing their OS off an existing OS. Less work for them.
>>54125836
Way to completely ignore the issue.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/ubuntu-spyware.en.html
Of course, freedom means you're still free to use Microbuntu as your OS of choice. People will think you're a retard, but you can still do it.
>>54122108
There's some degree of quantity vs quality at play, too.
At my workplace, we technically have an Ubuntu-dominated environment, because every single VM, LXC image, MAAS node or thin client workstation runs Ubuntu.
But while those make up the bulk of the quantity, they do not make up the bulk of the backbone. Our big and important servers run on CentOS, for example.
>>54125847
[citation needed]
>>54122605
uh apt came directly from Debian...
>>54125859
Just because someone calls something spyware, regardless of their "authority", doesn't make it spyware, and it doesn't make them any less stupid.
>>54122342
I tried mint on my dell laptop and not only did my wifi not work out of the box but my fucking keyboard didn't either. I laughed and automatically gave up.
>>54125891
>this thing that collects your personal data and sends it to other people isn't spyware
Ok.
>>54125900
It doesnt collect your personal data, it collects what you type into the search bar. When is the last time you typed your social number, address, and identifying features into a search bar?
>>54122342
>Mint hacked
It's fine, you can just verify the MD5 checksums they posted the day afterwards :^)
>>54125913
>a little spying is alright! stop freaking out!
No, it isn't. I get to consider what my personal data is, as it's mine. And I say that any damned thing I choose to do with my computer is my personal data, and I don't want it collected. It's really that simple. I don't care if it's my search queries, my porn habits, or how many boxes of toothpicks I buy in a week.
>>54125900
>>54125913
It's about as much spyware as your browser is spyware for supporting search suggestions (driven by e.g. google).
It's also about as much spyware as 4chan is spyware for storing the posts you type in their database and broadcasting them publicly.
>>54125963
>these other people spy on you, so it's okay for ubuntu to do it!
No, it isn't.
>>54125953
I didn't say spying is alright in any form, you even made up your own quote pointing at my post.
Every single OS you have is going to have what you consider as "spyware" so you might as well write your own OS if you want all your personal data to be "yours"
Good luck, keep us informed
>>54125976
The point is that the difference between something being spying or not is based on whether or not it was your intention to submit that data publicly.
If you installed the Amazon search engine and deliberately typed something into it, why does it come to any surprise to you that Amazon will receive what you typed?!
It's like accusing the world of spying on you if you go out in public and write a message on a wall.
>>54125986
>it's not possible! everything is a le botnet! just use windows and/or ubuntu you stupid fuck!
No, that doesn't sound too appealing.
>>54125996
>If you installed the Amazon search engine
Are you saying that this was an option offered to Ubuntu users during install/upgrade?
>What do we do with the information we collect
>We may use your information in the following ways:
>To authenticate access to certain features of our websites.
>To contact you to respond to enquiries or to provide notices to you regarding your use of our websites or the provision of our services.
>To provide services, products, process payment, and authenticate access (where required).
>To analyse the performance or the appropriateness of products or services. To comply with legal and regulatory requirements (including responding to court orders, subpoenas and to prevent crime). These special circumstances may require us to disclose personal information.
>To contact you if your actions violate your agreement with us (if any).
>To fix errors and analyse trends.
>To study how anonymous users interact with our websites and services.
>To market our products or services to you.
Yikes.
No, thank you.
>>54126005
Yes. It's not part of the base system. If you just install a bare Ubuntu install, you get basically nothing.
To get the amazon integration, you have to install one of the “desktop” packages that includes a bunch of shit you probably don't want.
That's why most sane people go for minimal installs and only install the software they actually want to use, rather than all the shit some idiot at Canonical thought would make for a good desktop experience.
>>54121606
The fuck are you talking about? Debian and CentOS are the true MVPs. Canonical can fuck off with Microsoft.
>>54126057
>you get the spyware if you choose the installer that 99% of all ubuntu users choose
I'm sure this was completely accidental.
>>54126021
>disclose personal information
>that we totally don't have
>but we do
>except that we don't
>but seriously though, we totally do
>maybe
Truly the most sane OS choice out there.
ITT: Ubuntufags get completely BTFO.
>>54126071
Well, this installer is based on an expectation of what a common user could appreciate. What you consider an unacceptable invasion of privacy might be a desired feature to somebody else - and vice versa.
If it was Ubuntu's goal to minimize any accidental invasions of privacy, they would have to uninstall a *great* deal of generally desired software, including but not limited to web browsers, email clients, and arguably even TCP/IP implementations.
As with security, privacy is a spectrum, and spectrums are dependent on your point of view. It might be that the unity-shopping-lens package is further in the “spyware” end of the spectrum than your comfort zone, which is why you call it spyware - but other desktop users might disagree.
It's hard to make definitive statements about this a priori, but in the case of Ubuntu in particular the only thing that's certain is that a very vocal minority has made Ubuntu revert the decision, perhaps at the expense of common users.
Ps. Ubuntu also has a very easy-to-find checkbox on the “security and privacy” settings page that makes it easy to disable this and other lenses/default features that tie into web services with a single click. This is not some Microsoft-level shit where you have to go registry hunting for hours, block host files or mess with hundreds of different group policy settings to get rid of it.
>>54126184
>the spying isn't as bad as microsoft, so it's fine
>you can just turn it off anyway
>not everyone cares, lol
Just use Windows.
>>54126200
>the spying isn't as bad as microsoft, so it's fine
This is a legitimate argument. In ethics there is a concept of proportionality.
You are like trying to argue that stepping on an ant is as bad as murdering millions of people, and using the ““it's less bad so it's okay” fallacy” fallacy to defend this irrational stance.
>>54122108
>openstack
>a canonical product
>mostly used by canonical themselves
>runs mostly on canonical's linux distro
By that metric AmigaOS won.
A vast majority of people with amiga hardware are using amigaos.
>>54126218
No, it isn't fine. There shouldn't be any spying at all in your OS. It's not okay because it's somehow "less bad" than the practices of another entity.
>>54126200
>you can just turn it off anyway
This is something that can't be said for Windows, though. It's impossible for free software to be unethical invasions of privacy because all usage of free software is a choice, and you have all the power in the world to change anything you don't like.
There are plenty of features in Firefox which I find unacceptable invasions of my privacy, for example, but instead of going on an autistic rage on an online forum about how Firefox is terrible and everybody who argues otherwise should just be using Google Chrome, I DO something about it. I disable features. I sandbox the process. I harden my environment. I post guides about how to accomplish all of this so others can follow in my footsteps.
>not everyone cares, lol
This is also legitimately the point you are missing. If you're autistic enough to care about these things, then you shouldn't be using the Ubuntu Desktop download. This is where you're going wrong.
You are trying to apply something that's designed for people who aren't you and then complaining about it not satisfying your particular requirements, and then somehow using this as an argument for that thing being bad.
But that's just fucking stupid, all it means is that Canonical understands its target audience better than some sperglord on /g/. Because you know who uses Ubuntu? People who have no fucking clue about Linux and privacy and would find it a useful feature rather than an annoying invasion of privacy.
You know, the same people who use Windows, the most popular OS in the world.
>>54126269
>it's okay to spy on ignorant people
No, it isn't.
>>54126252
>There shouldn't be any spying at all in your OS.
But that's impossible, for reasons I already covered.
Privacy is a spectrum, and the only way to definitively hit the opposite end of it is to not use a computer at all.
Since you are clearly using a computer and using a web browser to communicate on the internet, there's obviously some amount of “spyware” that you are comfortable using.
>>54126286
>your web browser is an OS
No, it isn't.
Try harder.
While Ubuntu has a 5 year TLS, they only maintain around 1k packages while debian with the same TLS has over 10k packages maintained
Ubuntu is just a fork of debian, please tell me in which area it is superior to debian in a production environment
>>54126299
>>54126278
I see you learn from the 4chan school of misquoting strawman attacks
So these anti-Ubuntu Crusaders have nothing to complain about in 16.04 so they go back to the old Amazon thing.
>>54126311
>why won't you let me move the goalposts so that I'm "right" and you're "wrong"?!
I don't feel like it.
>>54126306
LTS*
>>54122290
So does Fedora?
I'm using Fedora on my pc and laptop and only issue I've had was broadcomm drivers for the laptop.
>>54126323
I have made multiple lengthy points on this subject and you have just been consistently ignoring them.
For example, you seem to fundamentally fail to understand that privacy is a spectrum.
There's no such thing as “spying” and “not spying”, there's just a “reveals more information” end and a “reveals less information” end.
All of your posts so far have been ignorant of this fact. You also seem to consistently fail to understand the distinction between hidden spyware and a deliberate, advertised feature.
I personally don't care for Ubuntu, but it's bringing Linux to the front line and proving its a viable OS for people that are fucking fed up with Windows. And the big plus is the more people use it, the more developers will start porting their games. That's the only reason a lot of us keep that secondary hard drive or partitions with win7pro.
>>54126374
>For example, you seem to fundamentally fail to understand that privacy is a spectrum.
No, I don't fail to understand it. I just completely dismiss the notion as complete and utter bullshit. Mostly because it is.
I don't think it's okay that a person's OS spies on them. You do. This is fundamentally the argument we're having, pseudo-intellectual nonsense about "spectrums" and "it's not spyware if it calls itself something else" aside.
>>54122269
Linux mint is a fucking scam using an outdated Ubuntu as its base and an even more outdated kernel.
only thing it's good for is raking in thousands of dollars in donations for the developers every month.
Ubuntu is the pop music of Linux distros. For the masses, simple minded, braindead Linux. No thought needed, everything spoonfed to you, and addictive update schedules that bring nothing new 90% of the time
>>54126400
This. I even just recently deleted my windows 7 gaming partition in favor of an ubuntu gaming partition, because all of the games I really care about just run out of the box on ubuntu now.
>>54126410
>I just completely dismiss the notion as complete and utter bullshit. Mostly because it is.
I completely dismiss the alternative interpretation as complete and utter bullshit.
If we cannot even agree on the basic axioms then I can fail how we can even have a discussion given that we exist in different universes.
>I don't think it's okay that a person's OS spies on them.
I think this sentence is ill-defined.
>You do.
I can't agree with or refute this statement since it's similarly ill-defined.
I don't know what you mean by “an OS spying on somebody”, because I can't make sense of where your arbitrary definition of “spying” starts and where it stops, so I don't know if I agree with it or not.
>This is fundamentally the argument we're having
No, it is not. Fundamentally the argument we're having is that I don't think there exists a concept of a clearly-defined “spying”. They're just features with a different name you chose to gave them simply because they rely on information flowing to third parties.
But the same can be said about browsers, TCP/IP, search engines, e-mail, electromagnetic rediation emitted by your CPU, and more.
To get rid of information flow you literally have to stop using computers. So I can't see how you can consider some things “spyware” but not others.
But since you seem to refuse to believe that these things exist on a spectrum, of severity, you instead seem to misconstrue my argument as a shadow of it projected into your simpleton world view.
>>54126306
Maybe educate yourself first to learn the difference idiort.
UBUNTU IS NOT A FORK!
Ubuntu has over 20k packages if you choose to run it as a rolling release.
Are you aware that 80% of patches sent to Debian come from Ubuntu or that 100% of Canonical Canonical devs are Debian devs too?
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Debian
Educate yourself on why Ubuntu was NEEDED and why Debian could never do what Ubuntu was designed to do.
https://mako.cc/writing/to_fork_or_not_to_fork.html
May 15 2005; Revised August 7, 2005
>>54126299
Modern web browsers have process management, resource/memory management, hardware abstraction, a programmable API, mechanisms providing input/output, data storage (basically equivalent to a rudimentary file system) and more.
There is no functional distinction between conventional GUI applications running on a conventional OS and sufficiently complicated websites running in a browser.
Modern browsers basically *are* operating systems.
>>54126476
>but not all spying is spying, you see, it's really quite a complicated spectrum thing with features that exist in different universes using electromagnetic search bars and...
>anyway, you're just have a simpleton world view
Just fuck off. You're as needless verbose as you are willfully stupid. If you're okay with your OS spying on you, that's great. I'm not.
Ubuntu is great because it has the best installer out there, and it works well in it's default configuration. It also has paid support available, and good support from hardware companies such as NVIDIA (take a look at NVIDIA's CUDA SDK - certain features are only supported on Ubuntu).
The majority of reasons people dislike Ubuntu are shit:
>search bar 'spyware'
It was never more than 3 clicks to disable it, it's gone in the latest LTS, and it doesn't compare at all to the scale of privacy concerns in the most popular OSs.
>'too accessible for normies'
You're not a unique fucking snowflake because you can rice your desktop. Get over it.
>>54126513
>It was never more than 3 clicks to disable it
>you can just le turn off the le botnet! xD
Ladies and gentlemen, Wind... err... Ubuntu users.
Ubuntu by definition has more up to date packages than Debian because it feeds upstream Debian.
>>54126513
And you're not a unique fucking snowflake for being able to stumble your way through an Ubuntu installer. At least the nerd "ricing" his desktop has some small clue of how to work within his operating system without big shiny buttons.
>>54126529
You cannot reliably disable windows telemetry, and even if you could, agreeing to the EULA gives Microsoft the permission to re-enable it at their whim.
>>54126529
It's actually disabled by default now though, they listened to their users. Your argument no longer has merit.
>>54126555
Yeah, so don't use Windows.
>>54126554
You seem to be arguing my point... Are you 12?
>>54126529
Except it was never a botnet. What your Google search does is more of a Botnet than what Ubuntu did.
Are you trying to tell me you never use a search enfgine?
>>54126499
>If you're okay with your OS spying on you, that's great. I'm not.
Funny, I'm posting this from a Gentoo Hardened installation with PaX, grsecurity, SELinux, sandboxing and I go to great lengths to isolate e.g. firefox from the rest of my filesystem - even to the point of running it inside an isolated nested X server and using a special proxy for mitigating e.g. clipboard access.
You say this as if I somehow don't understand or somehow don't care about privacy, neither of which are even remotely.
Maybe it's my vested interest in privacy that leads me to understand the fact that privacy and security are both on spectrums. Some day you will go as far down the rabbit hole as I have and eventually realize when things stop becoming privacy/security concerns and start becoming features.
>>54126565
>>Google is the only search engine
Die
Arch users are so obnoxious.
>>54126415
It's because mint is shilled as being easier to install and use, even though Ubuntu mate the same, if not better,at ease of use
>>54126579
What magical search engine do you use?
>>54126560
>disabled by default
>it's still there, mind you
>but it's disabled
the tippest of toppest keks
>>54126566
Yeah, man, we're all impressed with your setup that no one asked about. You are truly an authority on the subject of spectrums. Whatever the fuck that means.
>Some day you will go as far down the rabbit hole as I have
No, I won't. Not only does that sound like a completely autistic waste of my time (and remember I'm a 4chan shitposter), it also seems completely unnecessary.
Rather, I'll just maintain my stance that an OS shouldn't spy on me, at all, and continue to reject idiots trying to relabel privacy invasions as "spectrums" or "features."
>>54126591
He wrote his own web crawler and indexes it locally
>>54126566
>SELinux
https://www.nsa.gov/research/selinux/
NSA can read everything you type on your computer.
NSA has also added special surveilance for Linux users.
Enjoy your botnet.
>NSA: Linux Journal is an "extremist forum" and its readers get flagged for extra surveillance
http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/nsa-linux-journal-extremist-forum-and-its-readers-get-flagged-extra-surveillance
>NSA may be targeting Linux users for increased surveillance
http://www.infoworld.com/article/2832337/nsa-may-be-targeting-linux-users-for-increased-surveillance.html
>Linux Lands on NSA Watch List
http://www.eweek.com/security/linux-lands-on-nsa-watch-list.html
>>54126630
>Yeah, man, we're all impressed with your setup that no one asked about.
I was just pointing out how fucking stupid and wrong your “you think spyware is okay” claim was.
>No, I won't. Not only does that sound like a completely autistic waste of my time (and remember I'm a 4chan shitposter), it also seems completely unnecessary.
Ah, so you admit you don't actually care much about privacy? Otherwise, there's no way you're avoiding that level of involvement.
>>54126652
>NSA can read everything you type on your computer.
[citation needed]
>>54126654
angry rekt faggot is angry
>and rekt
>>54126591
Not him, but searx.me is great as a free software search engine, and Startpage and DuckDuckGo are both privacy oriented as well, though they're not open source
>>54126654
But you do think spyware is okay. You've spent post after post defending it in this thread. Every time I so much as imply it isn't, you're right there with a bunch of "spectrum" bullshit and "not everyone cares" nonsense.
>Ah, so you admit you don't actually care much about privacy?
Not going to the lengths you do means a person obviously doesn't care much about privacy? For such a tech-literate guy your grasp of logic seems tenuous.
>>54125771
if you dont use ubuntu, you use windows. got it.
>>54126687
>But you do think spyware is okay. You've spent post after post defending it in this thread.
No matter how often you reiterate a completely false statement, it will not make it any more true.
I have spent post after post pointing out how it isn't “spyware”. Mostly because “spyware” is an entirely subjective label.
That is not the same thing as saying spyware is okay. How often must I repeat myself for this simple fact to just get through to you?
It's like arguing with a fucking wall. You would legitimately fail the turing test.
>>54126698
But it isn't completely false. Or false at all. And your attempts to redefine "spyware" or simply relabel a privacy invasion as something else are as disingenuous as they are transparent.
>>54122690
This about as hard as possible.
>U-use our platform, it's b-better
>NO
>Hey guys don't mind me just getting it on OEM PCs and everywhere
>WE'LL USE IT NOW
>"...uh your business doesn't conform to our autistic 80s philosophy, dismantle it please"
>>54126717
>And your attempts to redefine "spyware" or simply relabel a privacy invasion as something else are as disingenuous as they are transparent.
The problem is that you're referencing some subjective definition of something that can't be so simply summarized objectively. I'm trying to make it clear to you that there are more points of view in the world than your own, and that your arguments fall apart as soon as you apply them to somebody else.
Case in point: There exist people who understand that everything you type into the google search engine gets sent to and stored by google, in exchange for them being able to generate results that are biased by your search history. There are people that willfully, and not out of ignorance, ACCEPT this feature for what it is: A way to get better search results.
For some, a blasphemous invasion of privacy. For others, a quality of life improvement. A fine and subjective line.
Somewhere closer to the case at hand, we have browsers that have “multi-function” address bars which double as search engines, as are standard in virtually ever modern browser. For some, a blasphemous invasion of privacy to the point of disabling it. For others, a useful quality of life improvement.
Getting shopping search results in your multi-search bar is not that dissimilar a concept.
>>54126803
>I'm trying to make it clear to you that there are more points of view in the world than your own
Ok, I suddenly realize where the communication breakdown most likely came from. I don't give two shits, a fuck, or a rat's ass about any points of view other than my own.
And my point of view holds that everything you just listed is, as you yourself so eloquently put it, a "blasphemous invasion of privacy."
>>54126830
I think we're getting somewhere. It's fine for you to feel that way; it just shouldn't be used as ammunition against Canonical for somehow being underhanded in their inclusion of what, in their minds and considering their target audience, is intended to be a legitimate feature.
>And my point of view holds that everything you just listed is, as you yourself so eloquently put it, a "blasphemous invasion of privacy."
I never tried dismissing that, I just tried arguing that this is something that depends on your point of view. (Since e.g. >>54126184)
>>54126885
A legitimate feature for whom? Certainly not the user. Canonical and Amazon? Sure, as the whole point of the fucking thing was to make *them* money, not you.
>In response to accusations of privacy violations, Shuttleworth wrote, "We are not telling Amazon what you are searching for. Your anonymity is preserved because we handle the query on your behalf. Don’t trust us? Erm, we have root. You do trust us with your data already."
He's right up there with Zuckerberg on the "trust me, you dumb fucks" meter, isn't he?
>>54126932
>A legitimate feature for whom?
My sister, for example. She appreciates it and uses it, even after I pointed out to her that it meant Amazon can technically track everything she types into the launcher.
She also uses Facebook and WhatsApp, for example, even though we've had conversations about those companies and their lackluster concern for data privacy. To her, those websites provide a legitimate service that she has a hard time going without.
I think she's pretty much the common user here, as evidenced by these service's popularity. If you tell some random person about service X being a privacy concern, your first reactions are likely to be “so what?”, “lol who cares?” or even - god forbid - “you have nothing to fear if you have nothing to hide”.
>Sure, as the whole point of the fucking thing was to make *them* money, not you.
Do you have any citation on the fact that Canonical accepted money from Amazon to include their shopping lens in the default package set?
>>54126932
>Sure, as the whole point of the fucking thing was to make *them* money, not you.
An interesting comparison that comes to mind here is the topic of non-intrusive advertisements.
Some people see non-intrusive advertisements just as annoying as intrusive advertisements and go out of their way to explicitly block them. (For example: By using aesthetic filters to block plaintext advertisements that are part of a website's HTML)
Other people are fine with non-intrusive advertisements (even if they may be annoyed by intrusive advertisements).
(And of course, some third category of people are fine with all forms of advertisement)
To the middle category, non-intrusive advertisements are seen as a win/win deal. If a service receives money in exchange for inconveniencing users to a mild degree, and uses that money to improve the service it can provide to users, then the user may benefit from a net improvement.
So to somebody to whom the privacy intrusion of the amazon search lens is of minor or negligible importance, it might seem fully justified for Canonical to accept money from Amazon in exchange for improving their distro.
(Another example might be Mozilla accepting money from Google to make Google the default search engine in Firefox - in exchange for using that money for improving their product. For people who care, a search engine default is easily changed - to something like DuckDuckGo)
>>54126992
>My sister, for example.
With as little offense as possible, your sister is a prime example of the ignorant people I mentioned in an earlier post.
>but they don't care!
>they don't know any better anyway!
Yeah, which is exactly why shit like this shouldn't ever be foisted on them. They're not educated enough to make an informed decision on the usage and protection of their personal data.
At least here in the States, we have a metric fuckton of laws that protect people who can't (or aren't yet ready to) make informed decisions about a whole host of things. It seriously bothers me that no such protections exist for personal data on the Internet. You shouldn't be allowed to take it just because no one is telling you not to, especially when the majority of that personal data is coming from people who wouldn't know their fucking head from a CPU heatsink.
This isn't just a Ubuntu problem, obviously, but since it's the topic of the current circlejerk, here we are.
>Do you have any citation on the fact that Canonical accepted money from Amazon to include their shopping lens in the default package set?
Exactly why else would such a feature have bene included?
>>54125892
Probably because Mint uses a outdated kernal since it's built on LTS versions of Ubuntu. If you use newer hardware it's better to use the latest versions of Ubuntu.
>>54126312
Pretty much this
Not really a fan of Ubuntu but the new version looks alright. Even Unity is getting *slightly* better.
Though I'm still hoping they'll come to their senses and dump mir for wayland already...
>>54127107
The problem with laws like these are that they run into the very same problem of needing to find the line between “mildly dangerous and/or useful” (should be legal) and “very dangerous and/or not very useful” (should be illegal).
Do you make knives illegal because they can be used to stab people? Obviously not, and a similar tradeoff between interests occurs when you compare giving up privacy and functionality (instead of security and functionality). Is it okay for somebody to store search queries for the sake of improving future searches, for example? If you want to legalize this, there needs to be a clear answer to this - but the problem is that people, even informed people, clearly disagree about this stance.
Even comparing your country with others in areas where safety laws *do* exist, the legal system very clearly disagrees about the necessity and danger of, for example, carrying concealed firearms. To the U.S. policymakers, it's a necessary risk - to some other countries, it's absolutely ludicrous and irresponsible.
>>54127203
>If you want to legalize this, there needs to be a clear answer to this - but the problem is that people, even informed people, clearly disagree about this stance.
My sentences are breaking up, time to sleep.
>>54127203
And we're right back to "spying is okay, if..." which I disagree with. This is going nowhere.
>>54127218
I just realized that there's actually a good way to continue this sentence that agrees with my opinion:
“Spying is okay, if you don't consider it spying”
This even goes to every extreme, such as Facebook. Facebook's spying is okay for people who don't consider it spying.
(And in general, when it comes to this, I personally don't blame the companies, or the products - I blame the users. The companies are just there to give the users what they want)
>>54127253
They don't consider it spying because, as I've mentioned, they simply don't understand enough to realize the consequences of something like Facebook data collection. Again, as I've mentioned, we have laws that try to prevent people from being able to do incredibly stupid shit from a point of ignorance.
Man, I remember when you *weren't* supposed to give out your information online. Now, it's not only expected, but they just take as much of it as they want whenever they feel like it.
Is it hard to compile ubuntu from source? I want to do that just to be extra sure.
>>54127290
Why would you want to? The only benefit you'd be getting from a source compile would be the knowledge that you're compiling code you'd audited yourself and found acceptable. There is no way you're going through the entirety of the Ubuntu source.
>>54127299
I won't but if they're going to insert something "hidden" they're placing it inside the downloadable .iso - it would be retarded to do it in the source code, it would be compromised next second - you're not even aware how many autistic people closely watch the code and study every single update.
>>54127318
Well, there's certainly nothing stopping you from compiling Ubuntu from source, if that's your thing.
>>54127290
>Is it hard to compile ubuntu from source?
Depends on how thorough you want to be.
Where are you getting the compiler to compile the source code? How are you bootstrapping it?
Also, what do you mean by ‘Ubuntu’? Ubuntu as a collective whole includes many proprietary packages, some of which you can (optionally) install out of the box to provide e.g. support for discrete GPUs.
>>54127318
>you're not even aware how many autistic people closely watch the code and study every single update.
Neither are you
>>54126798
can you elaborate on this
>>54126830
>I don't give two shits, a fuck, or a rat's ass about any points of view other than my own.
Dude please. What the fuck. I made it through the first 4 stages of denial reading this.
>>54127316
>>54127458
le samefag
>>54126476
Fucking this
Well, I'm out. This was a fun lurk, but we've reached the post-BTFO butthurt samefagging phase of the thread.
IT WON BECAUSE IT IS THE BEST
NO OTHER DISTRO COMES CLOSE TO HOW GOOD IT IS TO INSTALL, USE AND MAINTAIN OVER LONG PERIODS OF TIME
>>54122690
i have some of those discs around here somewhere, and one of the sticker sheets too. those were some good quality stickers.
I want to see a definition of "spyware" that doesn't also describe cURL.
Anybody up to it?
>There are 37 posters in this thread.
This thread is a botnet
Captcha is also a botnet
>>54121606
They're the only distro that's trying to make Linux better. Mint, Gentoo, arch, those just exist. Ubuntu is constantly changing.
>>54127852
Thought you were going to bed?
>>54128452
I am in bed, but I'm not that same poster.
Please though, do try to define spyware without inadvertently describing curl. I'll check in the morning
Most of what Ubuntu was doing that people claim to be disruptive was actually done years prior by Mandrake.
I think it just became the dominant distro at a time where lots of people were getting tired of Microsoft (Vista era).
>>54121972
I would say it is far from won, but it has put a significant dent in the Red Hat systems that have dominated for so long and caused further decline or UNIX and even helped grow Linux usage itself, but RHEL is still the go-to distribution for building most server apps in the enterprise and will likely hold on to being the most compatible with proprietary products.
>>54128901
have you ever used redhat on a desktop?
Ubuntu is not a broken piece of shit but actually works like a desktop operating system is supposed to. It is easy to install, easy to install programs, good documentation with a google search.
As a user would you rather have a piece of broken shit that can do nothing, with no documentation, hard to install programs/dependency hell, everything incompatible, tiny user base, little/no documentation...or would you prefer Ubuntu?
You can actually USE Ubuntu and do productive things on it. Things just work rather than NOT work, which is how many distros are. Instead of spending hour after hour day after day trying to make it functional, holy shit, the things just works. Imagine an OS that actually works and isn't Windows/Mac. How bizarre.
Many will say that they prefer a distro where everything is broken, nothing works, and everything is incompatible, and you can do nothing. Some prefer Ubuntu though.
can we please just have a containment thread for fucking Linux it's barely technology all they do is argue about which name for Linux is the best one
>>54129048
"no"
Same here, I found Fedora works way better than Ubuntu on my Laptop.
>>54122342
Old news. Mint works better on older laptops. Mint ui is superior, Ubuntu was cool when 10.10 was relevant.
>>54122605
So that's why win is winning. It works and easy to use.
>>54126350
Fedora just working OOTB. Since when? I genuinely wanted to like Fedora but it's so much trash compared to *buntu.
>>54126417
A real OS shouldn't be something you have to think about. It should do its job in the background quietly and out of the way. Why on earth would you want some buggered shit constantly fucking with you? That's what Windows is for.
>>54129131
>>>54122342
>Old news. Mint works better on older laptops.
Lies
>Mint ui is superior
Lies, it looks like Windows XP/7 clone
>Ubuntu was cool when 10.10 was relevant.
Bullshit. Ubuntu Won. 1st choice for everyone from NASA to the Norwegian and Chinese militaries.
>>54126476
This one is completely right. Either go off grid if you're such a "nospyware" purist or just accept that if you use electronics, you are giving some kind of information away.
>>54126554
>ricer mad
lol
>>54129230
I'd like my electronics to give away as little information as possible though
>>54125950
>you can just verify the MD5 checksums
>implying he knows how to do that
>implying he even knows what it means
>>54126630
Face it, troll, you got BTFO.
>>54129188
Sure they are lies. Sure, sure. Mmm-m. Search your feelings annon; you know the truth.
>>54129254
But thats not an acceptable situation according to you. You're a heretic to your own ideals.
>>54126184
>Well, this installer is based on an expectation of what a common user could appreciate.
Kinda like all that shit from Sourceforge that expects users will want yet another useless toolbar, and other assorted programs that do nothing but eat up system memory, and track your every move? God bless Sourceforge, and God bless Cannonical. It's nice to know the big guys are looking out for us salt of the Earth types.
>>54126184
>this installer
>>54129457
sourceforge
When I praised the installer way back at >>54126513, I was talking about actual hardware compatibility and the fact that the installer is stable and intuitive. Nothing to do with whatever it is you two are babbling about.
Because just works and not an AutisticOS!
>>54126415
most people want to use their computer not update their computer with new rice features with extra rice for your rice. they are throwing money at the opportunity to have something normal for normies.
>>54128556
Didn't even try in 7 hours. Guess the "spyware" meme is as logically consistent as the IP leak meme
>>54129706
No, you were trying to justify why it's ok for it to bundle spyware with the distro. Just as Sourceforge does with free software. In this case it's actually worse than Sourceforge because Sourceforge is merely a third party distributor. Cannonical are the actual developers, and a major player in the Linux community as a whole, which means that they are fine with this bullshit. It means that they are actively trying to spread a plague that has otherwise been limited mainly to Windows, to the *Nix community.
>>54129269
(The joke is that Mint still uses MD5)
>>54133007
>spyware
You keep using this word, a portmanteau of "spying" and "software", which on its face value seems to describe the act of surreptitious surveillance via software.
If we go by face value, then surveillance means "close observation, especially of a suspected spy or criminal." Well, per the nothing-to-hide-nothing-to-fear fallacy, we can drop the prepositions and just go with "close observation". Well, anyone might realize that the amazon results are the opposite of "close observation" so we'll assume you mean only to imply "potential for abstract observation" when referring to surveillance.
So let's look at the surreptitious part. Defined as "kept secret, especially because it would not be approved of," we can easily observe that the amazon results are in no way kept secret (they're more or less front-and-center in your dash). If we consider that the "potential for abstract observation" is "kept secret" via the communication of your search terms to amazon, then this is also demonstrably false, per the clear-terms privacy notice available since the inception of the amazon search results feature. It is also common knowledge at this point that information submitted to internet companies is in fact used by those companies to optimize their service offerings, with the implicit agreement that you intended to submit that information in the first place. So nothing about the amazon results are surreptitious.
So when you refer to "spyware" you must intend to mean "software that provides the potential for 3rd party providers to observe your intentional, desired requests when actively performing a request". Otherwise you could not logically classify the amazon results or Ubuntu as a whole as "spyware". If this is your definition, and you vehemently oppose all "spyware," then please cease and desist using TCP/IP.
If you would prefer a more appropriate term instead, try "adware".
It simbly werks
