2 ms·

This is a great example of how nothing is free. Linux isn't free, not only does it cost time, it costs privacy. I do enjoy playing with it, so the first cost is

This is a great example of how nothing is free. Linux isn't free, not only does it cost time, it costs privacy. I do enjoy playing with it, so the first cost is meaningless to me, but the second absolutely is not. Frankly, Ubuntu is mismanaged. From the absurd new UI to a built-in privacy trojan? I'd rather just pay for an OS that doesn't hate me or use a different distro. Not sure what the allure of Ubuntu is at this point. If you can install and use Ubuntu, you can install and use Debian. Or Xubuntu if you're still an Ubuntu loyalist.

nathanb 14y ago
> Linux isn't free, not only does it cost time, it costs privacy. How does that follow? I'm assuming you're using an economic rather than ideological definition of the world "free", which sort of misunderstands the point of the article, but OK. The Linux kernel does not, to my knowledge, include anything which explicitly violates your privacy. If a Linux system distributor chooses to install privacy-invading bits on your hard drive, I don't see how you can blame the kernel or the entire free software ecosystem for this invasion. (The argument about time is possibly valid, though I find it takes more time to configure Windows to a point that I consider it usable than it does to do the same for a Linux system. As it turns out, learning new things does take time. You had to learn how to use Windows or MacOS as well, though chances are you learned it through assimilation. Some of us learned Linux this way, and thus don't quite understand people griping about how it's hard to use or takes too much time to set up).
- drzaiusapelord 14y ago
  >The Linux kernel Its 100% obvious from the context of my post that I was using linux as a shorthand for this distro. I really hate this disingenuous rhetorical trick. When people start talking about stupid things distros do suddenly its "OH WAIT, LINUX IS JUST A KERNEL!" Err, no one is just running the kernel. We're all running some distro. Its like a 'god of the gaps' argument for geeks. You get backed into a corner and suddenly its "wait wait, its just a kernel, how dare you criticize it?! Its pure." Yeah but we're still all running some distro. Why do distros like ubuntu and mint have these privacy issues and have ads in them? Lets not sweep these important issues under the rug of technical minutia.
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    "Linux" is not a valid shorthand for "Ubuntu" when you are saying things like "Linux costs privacy". Using such unannounced "shorthands" makes you appear to be a troll, and because of Poe's Law it is exceedingly difficult to rule out the possibility that trolling is exactly what you are doing. If you want to avoid these accusations, be clear and either type out Ubuntu instead of saving a single letter by writing Linux, or explicitly announce your "shorthand".
  - mylittlepony 14y ago
    And all distros have malware? Or just Ubuntu?
  - jackalope 14y ago
    Yet, instead of singling out the offending distro (Ubuntu), you implicated all Linux-based operating systems. It's not 100% obvious what you meant by painting with such a wide brush.
  - drcube 14y ago
    There are hundreds of distros, and Ubuntu is the only one that does this. Ubuntu != Linux. Who is using the rhetorical trick, again?
  - loucal 14y ago
    If that is 100% obvious to you, I would recommend some writing classes, along with a good bit of reading comprehension work. Good luck on your journey to meaningful communication.
  - sp332 14y ago
    Linux includes Android smartphones, most of the top supercomputers in the world right now, stock exchanges, and so on. It's true that "we're all running some distro" but 99.9% of the distros don't have this problem, so you can't say that "Linux" has this problem.
drivebyacct2 14y ago
>Linux isn't free, not only does it cost time, it costs privacy What a nonsensical statement.
vog 14y ago
>Linux isn't free, [...], it costs privacy. I hate this rhetorical trick. The article says "Ubuntu" and you generalize to all Linux distributions. What's the point of that mud-slinging against all Linuxes, including projects like Debian whose maintainers work at great expense to ensure user's freedoms are protected? (e.g. by having an extra team "Debian-legal" that studies all licenses and ensures there remains a clear cut between free and proprietary software)
jerf 14y ago
"I'd rather just pay for an OS that doesn't hate me..." I am not aware of a "for pay" consumer OS that wouldn't make Ubuntu's intrusion look positively benign by comparison. You're getting hammered because you took your argument overboard there. It also doesn't help that you said "Linux" instead of "Ubuntu".

nathanb 14y ago

> Linux isn't free, not only does it cost time, it costs privacy. How does that follow? I'm assuming you're using an economic rather than ideological definition of the world "free", which sort of misunderstands the point of the article, but OK. The Linux kernel does not, to my knowledge, include anything which explicitly violates your privacy. If a Linux system distributor chooses to install privacy-invading bits on your hard drive, I don't see how you can blame the kernel or the entire free software ecosystem for this invasion. (The argument about time is possibly valid, though I find it takes more time to configure Windows to a point that I consider it usable than it does to do the same for a Linux system. As it turns out, learning new things does take time. You had to learn how to use Windows or MacOS as well, though chances are you learned it through assimilation. Some of us learned Linux this way, and thus don't quite understand people griping about how it's hard to use or takes too much time to set up).

drzaiusapelord 14y ago
>The Linux kernel Its 100% obvious from the context of my post that I was using linux as a shorthand for this distro. I really hate this disingenuous rhetorical trick. When people start talking about stupid things distros do suddenly its "OH WAIT, LINUX IS JUST A KERNEL!" Err, no one is just running the kernel. We're all running some distro. Its like a 'god of the gaps' argument for geeks. You get backed into a corner and suddenly its "wait wait, its just a kernel, how dare you criticize it?! Its pure." Yeah but we're still all running some distro. Why do distros like ubuntu and mint have these privacy issues and have ads in them? Lets not sweep these important issues under the rug of technical minutia.
- jlgreco 14y ago
  "Linux" is not a valid shorthand for "Ubuntu" when you are saying things like "Linux costs privacy". Using such unannounced "shorthands" makes you appear to be a troll, and because of Poe's Law it is exceedingly difficult to rule out the possibility that trolling is exactly what you are doing. If you want to avoid these accusations, be clear and either type out Ubuntu instead of saving a single letter by writing Linux, or explicitly announce your "shorthand".
- mylittlepony 14y ago
  And all distros have malware? Or just Ubuntu?
- jackalope 14y ago
  Yet, instead of singling out the offending distro (Ubuntu), you implicated all Linux-based operating systems. It's not 100% obvious what you meant by painting with such a wide brush.
- drcube 14y ago
  There are hundreds of distros, and Ubuntu is the only one that does this. Ubuntu != Linux. Who is using the rhetorical trick, again?
- loucal 14y ago
  If that is 100% obvious to you, I would recommend some writing classes, along with a good bit of reading comprehension work. Good luck on your journey to meaningful communication.
- sp332 14y ago
  Linux includes Android smartphones, most of the top supercomputers in the world right now, stock exchanges, and so on. It's true that "we're all running some distro" but 99.9% of the distros don't have this problem, so you can't say that "Linux" has this problem.

drivebyacct2 14y ago

>Linux isn't free, not only does it cost time, it costs privacy What a nonsensical statement.

vog 14y ago

>Linux isn't free, [...], it costs privacy. I hate this rhetorical trick. The article says "Ubuntu" and you generalize to all Linux distributions. What's the point of that mud-slinging against all Linuxes, including projects like Debian whose maintainers work at great expense to ensure user's freedoms are protected? (e.g. by having an extra team "Debian-legal" that studies all licenses and ensures there remains a clear cut between free and proprietary software)

jerf 14y ago

"I'd rather just pay for an OS that doesn't hate me..." I am not aware of a "for pay" consumer OS that wouldn't make Ubuntu's intrusion look positively benign by comparison. You're getting hammered because you took your argument overboard there. It also doesn't help that you said "Linux" instead of "Ubuntu".