9 ms·

This was just a misunderstanding, comments from Mark S: https://plus.google.com/116812394236590806058/posts/5jdibY5iR9b https://plus.google.com/116812394236590

by jcastro 13y ago

This was just a misunderstanding, comments from Mark S: https://plus.google.com/116812394236590806058/posts/5jdibY5iR9b https://plus.google.com/116812394236590806058/posts/5jdibY5i... EDIT: and subsequent blogpost: http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1299 http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1299

throwaway9848 13y ago
s/misunderstanding/shrewd recognition of a budding PR disaster/ Canonical has really gone astray. Hell, the takedown order would never have been necessary in the first place without this shopping lens stupidity.
- jcastro 13y ago
  If you don't like the online lenses then you can turn them off.
  - throwaway9848 13y ago
    Yes, I can apparently set up a website with instructions for doing so and get a nastygram from Canonical, too. I run Fedora, anyway. edit: I wish people wouldn't try to make a 1 size fits all desktop for mobile/tablet/desktop, but Unity is pretty much a wash with GNOME 3 for me.
    - trentlott 13y ago
      I don't understand why anyone used it after Unity, honestly.
      - trycatch 13y ago
        Because of Unity, for example. With exception of some annoyances (like poor work with workspaces, not enough customizability, poor notifications), it's not so far to my personal definition of perfect DE, and miles ahead of other Linux DEs.
u2328 13y ago
I agree with Mark that it's not worth beating up Canonical over a bureaucratic slip up. Latching on to simple mistakes that are the result of internal miscommunication and misinterpretations of policy is foolish. And ideologues (especially in the software world) love to do that blindly, but it's not intelligent discourse. That being said, I don't think that absolves Canonical of the underlying criticism: your company is active pushing a product, despite its open-source-ness, that betrays the trust and privacy of your users unless they're informed enough about the situation to opt-out. I know Canonical is a corporation and has to generate revenue. I won't sit and pretend like I know how to solve that problem for your company. It doesn't change the dilemma, however. I'd like to recommend a user-friendly Linux to my friends and family. I won't recommend Ubuntu until the privacy issue is opt-in instead of opt-out. In fact, if they're less-technical, I recommend iPads and Macs. At least Apple doesn't ship off desktop search results to a third party that we're aware of. I hold enough trust with Apple to believe that they are not. It's unfortunate that I can't say the same for Canonical.
- ghshephard 13y ago
  "At least Apple doesn't ship off desktop search results to a third party that we're aware of" Care to wager what Apple resells your desktop/iphone/iPad search results for? I'm guessing it's on the order of 100 million dollars/year. Certainly more than 10 million dollars.
  - u2328 13y ago
    Citation please.
  - x0x0 13y ago
    unless there is something new in the latest release of osx 10.9, what on earth are you talking about? Also, apple sells google the right to be the default search engine on ios (see eg [1]); this is very different than selling your search queries or results. For instance, when you get a google results page, only the very stupidest could be unaware that, well, google knows what you searched for. [1] http://bgr.com/2013/02/11/google-apple-ios-default-search-1-billion-324728/ http://bgr.com/2013/02/11/google-apple-ios-default-search-1-...
JamesZaya 13y ago
I am glad there is a clarifcation from Mark - http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1299 http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1299. >Last week, the less-than-a-month-at-Canonical new guy sent out the toughest template letter to the folks behind a “sucks” site. Now, that was not a decision based on policy or guidance; as I said, Canonical’s trademark policy is unusually generous relative to corporate norms in explicitly allowing for this sort of usage. It was a mistake, and there is no question that the various people in the line of responsibility know and agree that it was a mistake. But if the person who sent the template letter was new, then surely this becomes a training issue? Trademark violations can soon become PR disasters just like this has become. So perhaps companies and start up's may wish to learn from Canonical's mistake as it can easily happen to them. No one is perfect. Mistakes happen...

by jcastro 13y ago

throwaway9848 13y ago

s/misunderstanding/shrewd recognition of a budding PR disaster/ Canonical has really gone astray. Hell, the takedown order would never have been necessary in the first place without this shopping lens stupidity.

jcastro 13y ago
If you don't like the online lenses then you can turn them off.
- throwaway9848 13y ago
  Yes, I can apparently set up a website with instructions for doing so and get a nastygram from Canonical, too. I run Fedora, anyway. edit: I wish people wouldn't try to make a 1 size fits all desktop for mobile/tablet/desktop, but Unity is pretty much a wash with GNOME 3 for me.
  - trentlott 13y ago
    I don't understand why anyone used it after Unity, honestly.
    - trycatch 13y ago
      Because of Unity, for example. With exception of some annoyances (like poor work with workspaces, not enough customizability, poor notifications), it's not so far to my personal definition of perfect DE, and miles ahead of other Linux DEs.

u2328 13y ago

I agree with Mark that it's not worth beating up Canonical over a bureaucratic slip up. Latching on to simple mistakes that are the result of internal miscommunication and misinterpretations of policy is foolish. And ideologues (especially in the software world) love to do that blindly, but it's not intelligent discourse. That being said, I don't think that absolves Canonical of the underlying criticism: your company is active pushing a product, despite its open-source-ness, that betrays the trust and privacy of your users unless they're informed enough about the situation to opt-out. I know Canonical is a corporation and has to generate revenue. I won't sit and pretend like I know how to solve that problem for your company. It doesn't change the dilemma, however. I'd like to recommend a user-friendly Linux to my friends and family. I won't recommend Ubuntu until the privacy issue is opt-in instead of opt-out. In fact, if they're less-technical, I recommend iPads and Macs. At least Apple doesn't ship off desktop search results to a third party that we're aware of. I hold enough trust with Apple to believe that they are not. It's unfortunate that I can't say the same for Canonical.

ghshephard 13y ago
"At least Apple doesn't ship off desktop search results to a third party that we're aware of" Care to wager what Apple resells your desktop/iphone/iPad search results for? I'm guessing it's on the order of 100 million dollars/year. Certainly more than 10 million dollars.
- u2328 13y ago
  Citation please.
- x0x0 13y ago
  unless there is something new in the latest release of osx 10.9, what on earth are you talking about? Also, apple sells google the right to be the default search engine on ios (see eg [1]); this is very different than selling your search queries or results. For instance, when you get a google results page, only the very stupidest could be unaware that, well, google knows what you searched for. [1] http://bgr.com/2013/02/11/google-apple-ios-default-search-1-billion-324728/ http://bgr.com/2013/02/11/google-apple-ios-default-search-1-...

JamesZaya 13y ago

I am glad there is a clarifcation from Mark - http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1299 http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/1299. >Last week, the less-than-a-month-at-Canonical new guy sent out the toughest template letter to the folks behind a “sucks” site. Now, that was not a decision based on policy or guidance; as I said, Canonical’s trademark policy is unusually generous relative to corporate norms in explicitly allowing for this sort of usage. It was a mistake, and there is no question that the various people in the line of responsibility know and agree that it was a mistake. But if the person who sent the template letter was new, then surely this becomes a training issue? Trademark violations can soon become PR disasters just like this has become. So perhaps companies and start up's may wish to learn from Canonical's mistake as it can easily happen to them. No one is perfect. Mistakes happen...