The data Ubuntu “steals” is missing the forest for the trees. Signing into Windows or onto your Macbook hands over more data than Canonical will get from you in years.
Unless you’ve been daily driving Tails for the past decade, you’re looking for the wrong battle.
Good point. I understand you’re saying it’s better to use Ubuntu than more locked-down and less libre alternatives. Fortunately, I daily-drive a GNU/Linux distro that I believe is less invasive than other alternatives.
“Hey we can either support the group that killed millions, or support the group that killed a couple people. Or we can go live in a cave in the mountains, realize our beliefs are too difficult, then go back to the group that killed millions.”
OP already runs Linux so that’s fine, but people constantly push the most insane privacy beliefs to newcomers and they end up giving up and going back to Windows. Stop letting perfect be the enemy of good - Canonical has done significantly more for privacy (“to stop killing people”, in your analogy) than any of us shitposters.
I see… we’re either with you, or with the terrorists? :)
I strongly disagree with your last statement indeed. It’s assuming all people here are shitposters and never done anything for privacy, and also assuming Ubuntu did anything for privacy at all, with a commercial model that inevitably slid down the road of sacrificing people’s privacy and the ethos of free/libre software for profit, and normalizing such behaviour. (you are the example of the latter, finding justifications for the unjustifiable…)
If your personal conclusion is “trust company XX for defending privacy” you may end up grossly disappointed (unless you have a vested interest in that company,m in which case it is “just” marketing…)
I see… we’re either with you, or with the terrorists? :)
Reading comprehension is hard, yeah?
It’s assuming all people here are shitposters and never done anything for privacy
I develop FOSS applications. You may have used things I contributed to. But unless you’re the alt of Torvalds himself, I doubt you’ve done more than the entirety of Canonical, who has made huge waves of impact throughout the FOSS (and privacy) communities.
Given that you misunderstood every point I made in this thread so far, it’s understandable the rest of your comment misses the mark.
Because that was my original point that Joe Bidet wanted to debate. If Joe Bidet replied saying “How can you compare an individual person to some corporation”, that might be a good point, but he doubled down instead
Gave an easy to use desktop for those fleeing Windows?
Running a quick git shortlog -se on the Linux kernel source also shows they’ve made thousands of upstream patches, and that’s ignoring the work they’ve done for projects like Gnome which even the top privacy distrobutions like Tails depend on.
The data Ubuntu “steals” is missing the forest for the trees. Signing into Windows or onto your Macbook hands over more data than Canonical will get from you in years.
Unless you’ve been daily driving Tails for the past decade, you’re looking for the wrong battle.
Good point. I understand you’re saying it’s better to use Ubuntu than more locked-down and less libre alternatives. Fortunately, I daily-drive a GNU/Linux distro that I believe is less invasive than other alternatives.
“Look, these people over there killed millions, so isn’t it OK to kill a couple of people?”
“Hey we can either support the group that killed millions, or support the group that killed a couple people. Or we can go live in a cave in the mountains, realize our beliefs are too difficult, then go back to the group that killed millions.”
OP already runs Linux so that’s fine, but people constantly push the most insane privacy beliefs to newcomers and they end up giving up and going back to Windows. Stop letting perfect be the enemy of good - Canonical has done significantly more for privacy (“to stop killing people”, in your analogy) than any of us shitposters.
Ubuntu ist awesome. I run arch btw
I see… we’re either with you, or with the terrorists? :)
I strongly disagree with your last statement indeed. It’s assuming all people here are shitposters and never done anything for privacy, and also assuming Ubuntu did anything for privacy at all, with a commercial model that inevitably slid down the road of sacrificing people’s privacy and the ethos of free/libre software for profit, and normalizing such behaviour. (you are the example of the latter, finding justifications for the unjustifiable…)
If your personal conclusion is “trust company XX for defending privacy” you may end up grossly disappointed (unless you have a vested interest in that company,m in which case it is “just” marketing…)
creates analogy with 3 parties in it
Reading comprehension is hard, yeah?
I develop FOSS applications. You may have used things I contributed to. But unless you’re the alt of Torvalds himself, I doubt you’ve done more than the entirety of Canonical, who has made huge waves of impact throughout the FOSS (and privacy) communities.
Given that you misunderstood every point I made in this thread so far, it’s understandable the rest of your comment misses the mark.
How can you compare an individual person to some corporation or whatever canonical is
Because that was my original point that Joe Bidet wanted to debate. If Joe Bidet replied saying “How can you compare an individual person to some corporation”, that might be a good point, but he doubled down instead
What has Ubuntu done for privacy?
Gave an easy to use desktop for those fleeing Windows?
Running a quick
git shortlog -seon the Linux kernel source also shows they’ve made thousands of upstream patches, and that’s ignoring the work they’ve done for projects like Gnome which even the top privacy distrobutions like Tails depend on.So mint is the cave in the mountains? If it is possible for someone to use a better system than Ubuntu that runs just fine, that’s suddenly a problem?