4 ms·

I was especially appalled when Mark Shuttleworth's response was something to the effect of, "Look - you should trust us absolutely - we practically have root ac

I was especially appalled when Mark Shuttleworth's response was something to the effect of, "Look - you should trust us absolutely - we practically have root access to your machines". That's not a good attitude. I originally switched away from Ubuntu because I didn't like the stuff I saw getting pushed to my machine in updates.

forrestthewoods 14y ago
That actually isn't what he said at all. He did not say "you should trust us". He said "you do trust us". There is a considerable difference. Here is the full question and answer. Q: Why are you telling Amazon what I am searching for? A: 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. You trust us not to screw up on your machine with every update. You trust Debian, and you trust a large swathe of the open source community. And most importantly, you trust us to address it when, being human, we err. http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1182 http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1182
- freshhawk 14y ago
  I would trust Ubuntu not to push down damaging updates that it would be impossible for them to do without it being discoverable. I would not trust them to hold on to my personal data with no way of knowing what they are going to do with it. "You do trust us" is a classic false dichotomy fallacy.
- TallGuyShort 14y ago
  Fair point on the quote, but I still stand by my point. Just because I do download updates from you does not mean you can make a fundamental change in where my data goes without my explicit permission. That's how you lose the trust I have given you.
- oelmekki 14y ago
  Well, that's the whole point, isn't ? We do not trust them anymore. Only my laptop was running on ubuntu, the whole affair made me realize a month ago it was the good time to give mint a try.
- pi18n 14y ago
  I think that comment did more harm than good. The problem appears to be that Ubuntu users trusted them to not do things like the shopping lens, and the statement that "you implicitly trust us anyway, so it's okay for us to get your data in this way" seems to be ignoring what their users are complaining about. Now that many users are rethinking if it is appropriate to allow Canonical to have root on their boxes, that comment may provoke a reaction for some; "you may have root, sir, but I have physical access."
- epo 14y ago
  That response doesn't answer the question but it does contain a lot of diversionary handwaving. Short version, yes we do tell Amazon, we just claim to preserve your anonymity. Given the deceit implicit in this obfuscation, there is not reason to believe anything Shuttleworth has to say on this subject.
chimeracoder 14y ago
> I originally switched away from Ubuntu because I didn't like the stuff I saw getting pushed to my machine in updates. What are you referring to?
- TallGuyShort 14y ago
  I saw quite a large quantity of stuff being downloaded that was doing nothing but adding Ubuntu branding to other packages like Firefox, etc. Nothing like the Amazon scandal in terms of how close it is to being 'malicious' - but I still didn't like the attitude / trend it indicated.

forrestthewoods 14y ago

That actually isn't what he said at all. He did not say "you should trust us". He said "you do trust us". There is a considerable difference. Here is the full question and answer. Q: Why are you telling Amazon what I am searching for? A: 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. You trust us not to screw up on your machine with every update. You trust Debian, and you trust a large swathe of the open source community. And most importantly, you trust us to address it when, being human, we err. http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1182 http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1182

freshhawk 14y ago
I would trust Ubuntu not to push down damaging updates that it would be impossible for them to do without it being discoverable. I would not trust them to hold on to my personal data with no way of knowing what they are going to do with it. "You do trust us" is a classic false dichotomy fallacy.
TallGuyShort 14y ago
Fair point on the quote, but I still stand by my point. Just because I do download updates from you does not mean you can make a fundamental change in where my data goes without my explicit permission. That's how you lose the trust I have given you.
oelmekki 14y ago
Well, that's the whole point, isn't ? We do not trust them anymore. Only my laptop was running on ubuntu, the whole affair made me realize a month ago it was the good time to give mint a try.
pi18n 14y ago
I think that comment did more harm than good. The problem appears to be that Ubuntu users trusted them to not do things like the shopping lens, and the statement that "you implicitly trust us anyway, so it's okay for us to get your data in this way" seems to be ignoring what their users are complaining about. Now that many users are rethinking if it is appropriate to allow Canonical to have root on their boxes, that comment may provoke a reaction for some; "you may have root, sir, but I have physical access."
epo 14y ago
That response doesn't answer the question but it does contain a lot of diversionary handwaving. Short version, yes we do tell Amazon, we just claim to preserve your anonymity. Given the deceit implicit in this obfuscation, there is not reason to believe anything Shuttleworth has to say on this subject.

chimeracoder 14y ago

> I originally switched away from Ubuntu because I didn't like the stuff I saw getting pushed to my machine in updates. What are you referring to?

TallGuyShort 14y ago
I saw quite a large quantity of stuff being downloaded that was doing nothing but adding Ubuntu branding to other packages like Firefox, etc. Nothing like the Amazon scandal in terms of how close it is to being 'malicious' - but I still didn't like the attitude / trend it indicated.