Talk:Ubuntu

Ubuntu Contains Spyware

Now that the whole Adware discussion has ended, does anyone object if I add to the article that Ubuntu contains spyware? By default, Ubuntu logs your Unity Dash keystrokes and sends these to their server. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 18:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The same criteria apply. Please provide reliable secondary sources which document the behavior and use the name, "spyware" to describe it. Elizium23 (talk) 18:55, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

It should say in the article about Ubuntu that Richard Stallman says that Ubuntu contains - in fact, he says "is"[1] - spyware. Some secondary sources: ZDNet, The Register, TechEye. Richard Stallman is the founder of the Free Software Foundation and the GNU Project. Ubuntu is Free Software that primarily uses the GNU GPL. No need to state that Stallman says that Ubuntu teaching people not to value freedom (convenience rather than freedom) or what the details are (Ubuntu sending what people look for to Canonical, Amazon finding out what people search for). The article should mention that Richard Stallman says that Ubuntu contains/is "spyware". --82.170.113.123 (talk) 19:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

How's this: According to Richard Stallman, founder of the Free Software Foundation and the GNU Project, Ubuntu contains spyware and should not be used by Linux supporters. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I've added it. WP:BOLD, plus it's properly sourced and relevant/noteworthy. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 22:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Strongly against this idea. Anyone else here think that this section smells suspiciously like the discussion of Ubuntu as Adware again? In this article, writing that "Ubuntu contains spyware" has the same general connotation as actually classifying the operating system as Adware or Spyware or Malware, which we already had a general consensus on earlier of not being valid nor agreed upon. ----Thomas (The Lord of Time) (talk) 22:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Please read the rest of the text in this Talk section, it has been rephrased thoroughly and has already been added to the article. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 23:04, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I've read the text in this talk section, and the content on the article that you added. I believe that my disagreement is with the use of just saying "Oh, Ubuntu contains spyware." I believe it prudent, and I may be wrong on this, that you should explain specifically what in Ubuntu is the source of the spyware, otherwise non-technical and non-informed users will say "Wait, Ubuntu is spyware?", which would then result in this article becoming a negative-stance article, regardless of WP policies and restrictions (and regardless of whether the section this is under is called "controversy" or otherwise). Therefore, I believe this requires further discussion before permanent inclusion in the article (perhaps flag the section as "Under Discussion", since it really is. And, no offense to you, Anonymous IP User, but I'd rather see some long-standing registered members commenting on this, not just you and I. ----Thomas (The Lord of Time) (talk) 23:25, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

---

Also, I discussed this with the security team, and found a response from Mark Shuttleworth on the bug about a legal notice, and I shall quote:

Here's how we are going to handle this:
* We will make a very bold, clear way for you to turn on and off network queries across ALL scopes for any given session in the dash. Think about this like the 'anonymous' mode in your browser. Toggle it, right there in the Dash, and you are totally certain you are not sending network traffic. We will aim to enforce this at the kernel level, hence the CC to Jamie S who leads our security team.
* We will have the ability to configure the Home screen, including choice of scopes, and the behaviour of individual scopes.
* Legal notices will all be in one place, in the 'About Ubuntu' part of the UX, and visible in the install experience too.

Mark

This "spyware feature" is in the development version of Ubuntu, as far as I can tell, which hasn't yet been released, but when it is, this would resolve the "spyware" issue, as you can clearly disable it.

Therefore, i believe that this inclusion you have already put in the article needs further discussion come April, and further preemptive discussion now, which you have opened courtesy of this section on this talk page. ----Thomas (The Lord of Time) (talk) 23:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Geez, now I'm calling into question the definition of spyware. I just tested in 12.10, and there is a way to disable this "spyware like feature": Settings > Privacy > "Off". That would therefore not match the definition of "spyware", since its an optional feature that you are able to disable. In 13.04, they're going to make the disable ability more prominent on the Dash itself. ----Thomas (The Lord of Time) (talk) 23:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Just because spyware can be disabled or is configurable doesn't mean it's not spyware. It's on by default and it happens without the user's knowledge. Only when the user reads a notice about it or happens to go through the settings will the user find out what is happening. It doesn't matter that it can be disabled or is configurable. I too welcome comments from other Wikipedia users. However, contributions from unregistered users are just as important in determining consensus as contributions from registered users, therefor I'm not too happy about your "I'd rather see some long-standing registered members commenting on this". --82.170.113.123 (talk) 23:56, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, whether it really is spyware or not is irrelevant. Richard Stallman claims it is spyware, that's what the article says, and his opinion is relevant and noteworthy. What in Ubuntu is considered to be problematic is already explained in the Ubuntu (operating system)#Controversy section, the section the line about Stallman is in. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 00:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

References

Free and open source software

Recent edits are driven by an agenda to remove the term Free and open source software from the article. I would ask why it is believed that Ubuntu is not free (libre) software? (Source: http://www.ubuntu.com/about/about-ubuntu/our-philosophy ) Elizium23 (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

The install medium contains only FOSS but the whole distribution consists of all software in the official repositories which includes Flash Player etc. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

I am not denying that it also contains proprietary and non-free software, but Flash Player, to take your example, is neither free nor open-source. The core of Ubuntu is not closed source, nor is it non-free software. What I am asking is why the editor is removing "free" and leaving only the descriptor "open source" in its place. Elizium23 (talk) 19:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. Thought you were referring to the edit which added “and proprietary software” to the infobox. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 00:17, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

GNU-Linux rather than Linux

Aren't Ubuntu and Debian distributions of the GNU-Linux operating system? If I'm not wrong, this would a more complete and precise and fair description on the article's first lines. And would give credit to the people who worked on the GNU os. --Facu89 (talk) 14:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

No. Additionally, Ubuntu has never been "Ubuntu GNU/Linux" (unlike Debian). Thanks, Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 14:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. --Facu89 (talk) 14:53, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 23:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Ubuntu (operating system) → Ubuntu – Per WP:COMMONNAME I suggest moving page to Ubuntu. The name Ubuntu is mostly used for the OS, not for the philosophy Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 12:00, 21 September 2013 (UTC).

• Opppose per WP:BIAS. While the OS is probably the single most important usage of "Ubuntu" considering systemic bias, it is not primary in the larger encyclopedic sense. —  AjaxSmack  23:52, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment If not this, the what should be. You mean Ubuntu (philosophy)? --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 11:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, in the larger encyclopedic sense, that is, in the sense of how users of the encyclopedia are using it. WP:BIAS is for dealing with the bias in the article content, not for getting in the way of reader navigation. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. Should this discussion be taking place at Talk:Ubuntu, since it would require moving that page to Ubuntu (disambiguation) as part of this? —C.Fred (talk) 00:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Yes, why not? --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 05:53, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment WP:COMMONNAME has nothing to do with this move, the article is already residing at the common name "Ubuntu". COMMONNAME only applies to the undisambiguated portion of the name. -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 00:30, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment you haven't mentioned what you're going to do with the page currently at Ubuntu, and I think merging that to become a hatnote is a very bad idea. -- 70.24.249.39 (talk) 00:31, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
  • O, I thought it's obvious, just moving Ubuntu to Ubuntu (disambiguation). As always... --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 05:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose move and object to nominator's rationale, per 70.24.249.39 (talk · contribs). Elizium23 (talk) 01:33, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
  • See my comment above. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 11:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose move per need to avoid systemic bias toward modern Internet topics in a general, intended for more than the Internet, encyclopedia. Agree with AjaxSmack's arguments. Yworo (talk) 01:59, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per everyone above. Insulam Simia (talk · contribs) 07:41, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Opposes above have been refuted. --B2C 19:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support. First, IP is correct that COMMONNAME is not relevant here, and, so, Elizium's oppose per IP's objection to nom's rationale is reasonable. However, JHunterJ has properly refuted AjaxSmack's WP:BIAS argument, and I note that Yworo's argument -- "avoid systemic bias toward modern Internet topics in a general" -- has no policy basis. Granted we have WP:RECENTISM, but that applies to much more transitory events than the Ubuntu operating system.

  Now, let's look at JHJ's claim that this OS use is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. For this question, page view statistics are often helpful.

  • Ubuntu_(philosophy) has been viewed 22344 times in the last 30 days. [2]
  • Ubuntu_(operating system) has been viewed 99338 times in the last 30 days. This article ranked 3506 in traffic on en.wikipedia.org.[3]

  The operating system is accessed almost five times for every time the article about the philosophy is accessed. Where the page view counts are closer they're not decisive, but here, with this enormous disparity, there should be no question about primary topic. Clearly, this use is the primary topic and it should be located at the base name. --B2C 19:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

That's if you take the primary topic criterion with respect to usage as the only one. There's also the criterion with respect to long-term significance, and the two may well conflict. The idea that there should be no question about this kind of a conflict is, well, merely your wishful thinking. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The long-term significance of the philosophy would be a relevant factor to consider if we were talking about whether the philosophy is the primary topic. But we're not. That question was already settled. Consensus was that the philosophy was not the primary topic. Now we're considering whether the operating system is the primary topic. The usage statistics indicate an obvious answer about which there should be no further question. --B2C 19:34, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per the statistics cited by B2C and per WP:BIAS. When this was discussed in 2011, the OS was out-hitting the philosophy on the order of 8 to 1, but there was no consensus to make the OS the primary topic. The ratio has now gotten worse: it's only 5 to 1. Couple that with the systemic bias toward the topic that is more likely to be discussed online, and this move doesn't seem a good idea. —C.Fred (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:BIAS (even though I'm typing this on a Ubuntu machine!). We're building an encyclopedia of the World's knowledge, and it's the fact that it's online which is naturally slanting our users towards the computer literate as opposed to the philosophical. --GRuban (talk) 22:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Important decision: reliable sources

If you known how to discern reliable sources, please give your assessment on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#http://desktoplinuxreviews.com_and_http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk. Ubuntu should be a featured article (I am willing to do a significant part of the required work, in the coming vacations) and for that we need much better sources. -- Jorge (talk) 18:20, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Sol (Laptop)

The Banner, again stop it. Only you think that Sol_(Laptop) is a SPAM. Got a different opinion? Please comment. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 22:00, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Please, my friend. That whole article about Sol is written by the founder of that company. Secondly, are you seriously wanting to add every single laptop that has Ubuntu pre-installed? What on earth is the encyclopaedic about that? The Banner talk 22:09, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with The Banner. It has not been demonstrated that this particular release of Ubuntu onto this particular hardware is so notable that it deserves a mention while others do not. Elizium23 (talk) 22:49, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

For now we have only a few Ubuntu machines, besides that's an innovation for Ubuntu (solar laptop with Linux), so it's absolutely usable and interesting for many readers. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 18:04, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the article in present shape was written by you. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 18:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, because the original author/founder of the firm preferred to have all the promo in that article. Or did you not notice that founder and author are equal? The Banner talk 16:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Please note that if someone has something to do with article's content not becomes automaticlit a SPAMMER. This info is useful and doesn't matter ho adds it. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 00:50, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

(bwc) It is completely unbelievable that User:Rezonansowy keeps adding the info about WeWi and Sol. This information was added by the founder of WeWi, someone with a clear business interest to spread the word. What on earth makes you think that it is not promo, Rezonansowy? Why do you so bluntly ignore the facts? The Banner talk 00:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

• Not spam. Hello guys. I made a cursory check: GizMag, PC Pro, Computer World and Daily Tech have reviews about Sol. So, the subject is notable and Sol can have its own article. Mentioning Sol in this article in the same line that other laptops are mentioned is acceptable. In case of WP:COI, we must eliminate the conflict, not the article.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 12:53, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

User:Rezonansowy Among others are a majority here. The Banner keeps deleting stuff about the laptop saying it's not notable and that it's spam. I seriously doubt the inventor(s) would have time to edit articles, they are a bit busy it seems making other stuff. You're pointing fingers here but it is just as likely that I'm the creator or a marketing firm as you are some Microsoft employee with a personal agenda against Linux/Ubuntu and products supporting it. I thank everyone else enthusiastic about Sol as I am that are helping keeping this on. P.S - TheBanner, there's a majority here that disagrees with you, accept it and stop deleting Sol referencesDSNR talk 03:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)