6 ms·

What was the reason behind this? "not free anymore"==??

belorn 14y ago
I wonder the same thing.
paulgb 14y ago
It's likely in response to Ubuntu's controversial new "feature" of including Amazon search results in unity search (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/24/ubuntu_amazon_suggestions/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/24/ubuntu_amazon_sugges...)
- beothorn 14y ago
  It's strange because he wrote "making free software is not free" not "using free software is not free". This gives the impression that somehow working on ubuntu tweak is costing him too much money.
  - ayanamist 14y ago
    From his tweets, the latest version of ubuntu tweak is built on a web view, which means some parts of the soft is running on the server, and so far this server nearly runs out of the bandwidth.
    - toyg 14y ago
      Maybe he should have approached Ubuntu then? I bet it wouldn't be a significant expense for them to host such a useful utility.
    - gknoy 14y ago
      I am curious why it would need to be a web view that he hosts, rather than something running locally on the user's machine.
- colinhowe 14y ago
  If so, a nice feature would have been to add the removal of this to Ubuntu Tweak
- drivingmenuts 14y ago
  I love this (from the article): "You trust us not to screw up on your machine with every update." -- Mark Shuttleworth That's not the same as "I trust you with my personal information." No matter how trivial, it's still personal information. Seems like this could be a potential security risk, as well, although I'm having trouble articulating it.
  - chmars 14y ago
    The simple truth is that you cannot use an OS without trusting its developers. To a lesser degree, the same is true for any software. I do not like this dependence either but it seems to be a reality we (at least I) have to accept.
    - recoiledsnake 14y ago
      The fact that we're okay with running their code need not necessarily mean that we should be okay with sending them personal information. The two are mutually exclusive.
      - ordinary 14y ago
        Mutually exclusive means that either one, xor the other can be true, but not both. That is not the case here. You can be OK with running someone's code and with sending them your personal information.
      - dredmorbius 14y ago
        The word you're looking for is "orthogonal".
    - jlgreco 14y ago
      I don't think that is true of software at all. I wouldn't trust Fyodor (well, I suppose these days I would. Not in the past though), but I do and always have trusted Nmap.
- Spoom 14y ago
  I'm guessing it may have had more to do with Ubuntu's decision to "develop out of the public eye": http://techcrunch.com/2012/10/18/canonical-ceo-mark-shuttleworth-tires-of-critics-moves-key-ubuntu-developments-out-of-public-eye/ http://techcrunch.com/2012/10/18/canonical-ceo-mark-shuttlew...
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - rlpb 14y ago
    In a subsequent blog post, Mark Shuttleworth says: """ What I offered to do, yesterday, spontaneously, is to invite members of the community in to the things we are working on as personal projects, before we are ready to share them. This would mean that there was even less of Ubuntu that was NOT shaped and polished by folk other than Canonical – a move that one would think would be well received. This would make Canonical even more transparent. So please disregard the commentary by folk who assumed that the public discussion of Ubuntu development would somehow change. """ http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1207 http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1207
  - bryanlarsen 14y ago
    dead response from rlpb: In a subsequent blog post, Mark Shuttleworth says: """ What I offered to do, yesterday, spontaneously, is to invite members of the community in to the things we are working on as personal projects, before we are ready to share them. This would mean that there was even less of Ubuntu that was NOT shaped and polished by folk other than Canonical – a move that one would think would be well received. This would make Canonical even more transparent. So please disregard the commentary by folk who assumed that the public discussion of Ubuntu development would somehow change. """ http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1207 http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1207
xxiao 14y ago
exactly, i'm totally confused on what he was trying to say. is it like "i'm doing this for free, so ubuntu should not add any commercial features to the base software either"?
tomrod 14y ago
xxaio, I tried to respond directly to you but you are hellbanned. My guess is that this app might take a lot of time, and unless the developer is paid well elsewhere then a realization may be had--time costs money :/. That's my only complaint about free software--UX can be rough at times for the uninitiated.
nightpool 14y ago
He explained this in a later article: http://blog.ubuntu-tweak.com/2012/10/22/thank-you-ubuntu-tweak-will-continue.html http://blog.ubuntu-tweak.com/2012/10/22/thank-you-ubuntu-twe... He feels like Ubuntu tweak is getting too high maintenance and that he just needs to step away from it for a little while, to work out a balance with his job and life and such.

I wonder the same thing.

It's likely in response to Ubuntu's controversial new "feature" of including Amazon search results in unity search (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/24/ubuntu_amazon_suggestions/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/24/ubuntu_amazon_sugges...)

beothorn 14y ago
It's strange because he wrote "making free software is not free" not "using free software is not free". This gives the impression that somehow working on ubuntu tweak is costing him too much money.
- ayanamist 14y ago
  From his tweets, the latest version of ubuntu tweak is built on a web view, which means some parts of the soft is running on the server, and so far this server nearly runs out of the bandwidth.
  - toyg 14y ago
    Maybe he should have approached Ubuntu then? I bet it wouldn't be a significant expense for them to host such a useful utility.
  - gknoy 14y ago
    I am curious why it would need to be a web view that he hosts, rather than something running locally on the user's machine.
colinhowe 14y ago
If so, a nice feature would have been to add the removal of this to Ubuntu Tweak
drivingmenuts 14y ago
I love this (from the article): "You trust us not to screw up on your machine with every update." -- Mark Shuttleworth That's not the same as "I trust you with my personal information." No matter how trivial, it's still personal information. Seems like this could be a potential security risk, as well, although I'm having trouble articulating it.
- chmars 14y ago
  The simple truth is that you cannot use an OS without trusting its developers. To a lesser degree, the same is true for any software. I do not like this dependence either but it seems to be a reality we (at least I) have to accept.
  - recoiledsnake 14y ago
    The fact that we're okay with running their code need not necessarily mean that we should be okay with sending them personal information. The two are mutually exclusive.
    - ordinary 14y ago
      Mutually exclusive means that either one, xor the other can be true, but not both. That is not the case here. You can be OK with running someone's code and with sending them your personal information.
    - dredmorbius 14y ago
      The word you're looking for is "orthogonal".
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    I don't think that is true of software at all. I wouldn't trust Fyodor (well, I suppose these days I would. Not in the past though), but I do and always have trusted Nmap.
Spoom 14y ago
I'm guessing it may have had more to do with Ubuntu's decision to "develop out of the public eye": http://techcrunch.com/2012/10/18/canonical-ceo-mark-shuttleworth-tires-of-critics-moves-key-ubuntu-developments-out-of-public-eye/ http://techcrunch.com/2012/10/18/canonical-ceo-mark-shuttlew...
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- rlpb 14y ago
  In a subsequent blog post, Mark Shuttleworth says: """ What I offered to do, yesterday, spontaneously, is to invite members of the community in to the things we are working on as personal projects, before we are ready to share them. This would mean that there was even less of Ubuntu that was NOT shaped and polished by folk other than Canonical – a move that one would think would be well received. This would make Canonical even more transparent. So please disregard the commentary by folk who assumed that the public discussion of Ubuntu development would somehow change. """ http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1207 http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1207
- bryanlarsen 14y ago
  dead response from rlpb: In a subsequent blog post, Mark Shuttleworth says: """ What I offered to do, yesterday, spontaneously, is to invite members of the community in to the things we are working on as personal projects, before we are ready to share them. This would mean that there was even less of Ubuntu that was NOT shaped and polished by folk other than Canonical – a move that one would think would be well received. This would make Canonical even more transparent. So please disregard the commentary by folk who assumed that the public discussion of Ubuntu development would somehow change. """ http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1207 http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1207

xxiao 14y ago

exactly, i'm totally confused on what he was trying to say. is it like "i'm doing this for free, so ubuntu should not add any commercial features to the base software either"?

tomrod 14y ago

xxaio, I tried to respond directly to you but you are hellbanned. My guess is that this app might take a lot of time, and unless the developer is paid well elsewhere then a realization may be had--time costs money :/. That's my only complaint about free software--UX can be rough at times for the uninitiated.

nightpool 14y ago

He explained this in a later article: http://blog.ubuntu-tweak.com/2012/10/22/thank-you-ubuntu-tweak-will-continue.html http://blog.ubuntu-tweak.com/2012/10/22/thank-you-ubuntu-twe... He feels like Ubuntu tweak is getting too high maintenance and that he just needs to step away from it for a little while, to work out a balance with his job and life and such.