3 ms·

The only point I slightly disagree with you on is privacy - here's my reasoning: Some defaults are visible, you see them and think "that's annoying, I'd better

The only point I slightly disagree with you on is privacy - here's my reasoning: Some defaults are visible, you see them and think "that's annoying, I'd better figure out a way to change it". Invisible defaults like privacy settings can be a lot more insidious, especially when (for better or worse) you expect your OS to treat your information very privately. Ubuntu seem to hide the privacy settings a little bit (even that link you sent, the privacy section isn't properly explained, just a vague reference to "files activity"). When I read your post about the central place to manage privacy settings I thought "wow really?" went there and changed them. Now on the other hand, you might argue this is all my fault for not taking the time to find out about my privacy settings...

rlpb 14y ago
> Invisible defaults like privacy settings can be a lot more insidious, especially when (for better or worse) you expect your OS to treat your information very privately. It is treated privately - it gets anonymized, so there's no privacy violation going on in the first place. There's a notice on the Dash that gives you the details, which is visible any time the search box is visible. And the box is a global search box. Do you expect privacy when you search in a Google search box also? > Now on the other hand, you might argue this is all my fault for not taking the time to find out about my privacy settings... No. My argument is that your privacy isn't violated with default settings in the first place. For the truly paranoid, you can still turn it off. But if you have that level of paranoia, you'd better audit all the source code on your system yourself. Do you know, for example, the details of how Chrome and Firefox anonymize URLs you visit for blacklist warning purposes?
- peeters 14y ago
  > It is treated privately - it gets anonymized, so there's no privacy violation going on in the first place. Fat chance. Say I wanted to edit my resume, so I pop open Dash and search for "John Smith Resume". As long as they send up "John Smith Resume", they know a) my name, and b) that I'm looking for a new job. > Do you expect privacy when you search in a Google search box also? Apples and oranges. I have different expectations when searching local data than when searching public data. If something's indexed by Google, it's not secret obviously. If something's on my hard drive, it might be secret.
  - rlpb 14y ago
    > I have different expectations when searching local data than when searching public data. Your problem is that you believe the Dash to be a search for local data, when it is not. It is a single search box which is supposed to figure out what resource you want (be it local or remote). Observe ordinary users (the users that Ubuntu is aimed at, btw). Many will go to Google and type a URL in their search box. They do not distinguish. If a search fails, they don't care that they didn't type the search into the wrong type of box. As far as they're concerned, it didn't work. Demanding that they differentiate first is a worse UX. If you want to do a local search, then don't type the search into a global search box.

rlpb 14y ago

> Invisible defaults like privacy settings can be a lot more insidious, especially when (for better or worse) you expect your OS to treat your information very privately. It is treated privately - it gets anonymized, so there's no privacy violation going on in the first place. There's a notice on the Dash that gives you the details, which is visible any time the search box is visible. And the box is a global search box. Do you expect privacy when you search in a Google search box also? > Now on the other hand, you might argue this is all my fault for not taking the time to find out about my privacy settings... No. My argument is that your privacy isn't violated with default settings in the first place. For the truly paranoid, you can still turn it off. But if you have that level of paranoia, you'd better audit all the source code on your system yourself. Do you know, for example, the details of how Chrome and Firefox anonymize URLs you visit for blacklist warning purposes?

peeters 14y ago
> It is treated privately - it gets anonymized, so there's no privacy violation going on in the first place. Fat chance. Say I wanted to edit my resume, so I pop open Dash and search for "John Smith Resume". As long as they send up "John Smith Resume", they know a) my name, and b) that I'm looking for a new job. > Do you expect privacy when you search in a Google search box also? Apples and oranges. I have different expectations when searching local data than when searching public data. If something's indexed by Google, it's not secret obviously. If something's on my hard drive, it might be secret.
- rlpb 14y ago
  > I have different expectations when searching local data than when searching public data. Your problem is that you believe the Dash to be a search for local data, when it is not. It is a single search box which is supposed to figure out what resource you want (be it local or remote). Observe ordinary users (the users that Ubuntu is aimed at, btw). Many will go to Google and type a URL in their search box. They do not distinguish. If a search fails, they don't care that they didn't type the search into the wrong type of box. As far as they're concerned, it didn't work. Demanding that they differentiate first is a worse UX. If you want to do a local search, then don't type the search into a global search box.