Ubuntu will become ad-ware soon.

[Pjotr]

The problem is that it is opt-out, not opt-in.

No practical problem, just ideological.... Only practical problems are worth solving, in my opinion.

Ideologische Probleme sind mir scheissegal.

[/dev/urandom]

I'll remind you of that when the next ideological "Mint rocks because it is not OSX/Windows" thread comes up.

[cwwgateway]

With ads I was referring to both apple's app store and microsoft's upcoming app store. They both have (or in the case of microsoft, it will) heavily advertise their stores, when every app sold gives them 30%.

[/dev/urandom]

Advertising itself is quite normal. Linux does it too.
There is a difference between that and advertising Amazon.

[altair4]

It will be a big boon to the "adult services" industry:

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+sour ... ug/1054282

Shopping suggestions can produce results that contain inappropriate images in the preview pictures, and links to items that are clearly not suitable for all ages.

It does however reinforce my belief that Unity is a development proof of concept designed for this where one could argue it's not a bug but a feature:
http://www.ubuntu.com/devices/tv

[veggen]

Ubuntu needs funding, so now they have a nice way to get it. As long as you can opt-out, what's wrong with that? I'd rather have one more well funded distro than one more distro that disappears in 6 months.

[Pjotr]

I'll remind you of that when the next ideological "Mint rocks because it is not OSX/Windows" thread comes up.

That kind of discussions is boring beyond words to me; you won't find me posting in such a thread, anyway. Überhaupt und sowieso nicht.

Ubuntu has to make money to exist; that's a fact of life. The ways Ubuntu makes it's money are fine with me (pr0n, cutting rainforest and genocide excluded), as long as they don't pose practical problems.

There is already some good humour about this issue, by the way:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+sour ... ug/1055766

[/dev/urandom]

Ubuntu needs funding, so now they have a nice way to get it. As long as you can opt-out, what's wrong with that?

The fact that the user is not asked in the first place. So much about the freedom part; take it until you stop it?

I'd rather have one more well funded distro than one more distro that disappears in 6 months.

Oh right, there are not enough distros yet.

Every ad-ware author "needs the money". Now what?

[xenopeek]

I'm not sure where to stand on this; it's not the final release yet so I'll hold judgment till I see it in action on a release that users will actually use (I mean, the linked articles are reporting based on how it works in the current development release).

There is perhaps a point to this being opt-out instead of opt-in. But I do like the development of you being able to add a lens, and with this enrich your search results from matches on additional search providers. Then again, I don't need my operating system to become my Internet browser

I think we can all agree there is some controversy surrounding this. Making a bit of fun of that, user akeane just submitted this bug report: grep -R doesn't automatically search amazon. Okay, so that is a bit overboard but gave me a good laugh anyway, as akeane clearly intended Still, it raises good questions on why should we want the operating system to also search Amazon for us?

[/dev/urandom]

The answer is simple: We don't. Canonical wants us to.

[veggen]

Ubuntu needs funding, so now they have a nice way to get it. As long as you can opt-out, what's wrong with that?

The fact that the user is not asked in the first place. So much about the freedom part; take it until you stop it?

Canonical is not a charity organization. If you don't like their business model, you're 100% free not to use it. So much for the freedom part.

I'd rather have one more well funded distro than one more distro that disappears in 6 months.

Oh right, there are not enough distros yet.

Well funded ones? Well maintained ones? User friendly and popular non-Ubuntu derivatives? And yet free (as in beer)? No. There is not remotely enough such distros. There's Fedora and... what?

Every ad-ware author "needs the money". Now what?

Yes, they do. And there is nothing wrong with that. The market (including you) decides whether their model will work or not.

[/dev/urandom]

Canonical is not a charity organization. If you don't like their business model, you're 100% free not to use it. So much for the freedom part.

Correctly. So all operating systems are charity products then. Good to know, but I'll still prefer the ad-free ones.

Well funded ones? Well maintained ones? User friendly and popular non-Ubuntu derivatives? And yet free (as in beer)? No. There is not remotely enough such distros. There's Fedora and... what?

Debian, openSUSE, Mandriva/Mageia, CentOS?
(And their derivatives; in case of Debian there are a lot.)

[exploder]

Hmm....

http://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2012/09/is-a ... -the-works

[/dev/urandom]

They should add an "on" switch instead.

[cwwgateway]

Not to be picky, but Mandriva is most certainly not well funded (it's been almost dead for a long time).

Edit: Also, lets see how Beta 2 is. I never install ubuntu before Beta 2 and expect it to be decent.

[/dev/urandom]

IIRC Mandriva will have its own foundation in a while (or already has?), so the funding is probably safe now.

[odo5435]

If the contributors to this thread can be considered representative of 'the norm', then it appears that Canonical is correct in it's thinking. Most users either do not care or are not concerned with this development.

FWIW, I tend to agree with you @/dev/urandom. However, as others have pointed out, no-one knows yet what the finished product will be or even if there will be one. Until that's known, it's not worth excessive debate.

[RJim]

Well, looks like I am in the minority again...but if this is in the next version of Mint then I can safely say I won't be upgrading to it.

Some may think that this is an extremist viewpoint, but really not. I like Amazon (for the most part) and I understand the need to get revenue, as any working adult would. At the same time though, I believe that there is a line that shouldn't be crossed. Computers are used for work and to get things done mostly. I wouldn't want to have to listen to an ad before I could start my car for example, and I wouldn't want to have my computer pushing ads on me when I go to start an app either. Oh sure, it might not do that yet, but I can see the proverbial "writing on the wall" here.

If I want to buy something then I will start my web browser and search shopping sites. I don't need it embedded into my OS. This is actually worse than something I would've expected from Windows and it makes me cringe to even think about it.

Again you may think I'm over-reacting here, but I will say this and you can quote me on it: The day that our personal computers become simply a medium to serve us ads is fast approaching, and when it happens, our collective goose is cooked.
Next in line is ads on our boot loader screens, and perhaps even ads during BIOS startups. I shudder to think of it.

--Jim

[veggen]

Canonical is not a charity organization. If you don't like their business model, you're 100% free not to use it. So much for the freedom part.

Correctly. So all operating systems are charity products then. Good to know, but I'll still prefer the ad-free ones.

What?! You obviously operate on your own logic. No OS is a charity product, but they each have their own business models (Ubuntu's is to have ads) and you've just proven my point about having all the freedom you need by choosing to use ad-free ones. While Ubuntu's move might be dirty, it makes no sense to go religious over it. This is Linux. No single company (even if it's Canonical) can ever corner you, because you *always* have choice. Let them try this business model. If it works, great, Ubuntu will get more funding and more stuff going, which ad-free derivatives can inherit. If it doesn't, great, no one else will get the idea to try it.

Well funded ones? Well maintained ones? User friendly and popular non-Ubuntu derivatives? And yet free (as in beer)? No. There is not remotely enough such distros. There's Fedora and... what?

Debian, openSUSE, Mandriva/Mageia, CentOS?
(And their derivatives; in case of Debian there are a lot.)

CentOS is a server OS, and not applicable here. Debian is far from user friendly, or Ubuntu and Mint wouldn't have been so popular. Mageia is a new comer, so again, not applicable. Mandriva? Seriously? And I can give you openSUSE. So you've proved my point yet again, there are *not* enough distros matching the criteria. Ubuntu, no matter how sleazy, is useful to have around.

if this is in the next version of Mint

Why would it be? It's a Unity lens. Mint has nothing to do with Unity. That's why we love it

[/dev/urandom]

No OS is a charity product, but they each have their own business models (Ubuntu's is to have ads)

So does anyone really support that?

This is Linux. No single company (even if it's Canonical) can ever corner you, because you *always* have choice.

Yes, the choice to use a different OS. Not necessarily a Linux OS.

CentOS is a server OS, and not applicable here.

Why not?

Debian is far from user friendly

Why? What exactly is missing for you?

or Ubuntu and Mint wouldn't have been so popular.

Ubuntu is popular because PC magazines for beginners say it's the best thing since sliced bread.
Mint is popular because Ubuntu started to suck and it is "Ubuntu with a better UI". Say the PC magazines.

Mageia is a new comer, so again, not applicable.

Many Mandriva users switched.

Mandriva? Seriously?

More details please.