No practical problem, just ideological.... Only practical problems are worth solving, in my opinion./dev/urandom wrote:The problem is that it is opt-out, not opt-in.
Ideologische Probleme sind mir scheissegal.
No practical problem, just ideological.... Only practical problems are worth solving, in my opinion./dev/urandom wrote:The problem is that it is opt-out, not opt-in.
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: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.
/dev/urandom wrote:I'll remind you of that when the next ideological "Mint rocks because it is not OSX/Windows" thread comes up.
The fact that the user is not asked in the first place. So much about the freedom part; take it until you stop it?veggen wrote: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?
Oh right, there are not enough distros yet.veggen wrote:I'd rather have one more well funded distro than one more distro that disappears in 6 months.
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./dev/urandom wrote:The fact that the user is not asked in the first place. So much about the freedom part; take it until you stop it?veggen wrote: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?
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?/dev/urandom wrote:Oh right, there are not enough distros yet.veggen wrote:I'd rather have one more well funded distro than one more distro that disappears in 6 months.
Yes, they do. And there is nothing wrong with that. The market (including you) decides whether their model will work or not./dev/urandom wrote: Every ad-ware author "needs the money". Now what?
Correctly. So all operating systems are charity products then. Good to know, but I'll still prefer the ad-free ones.veggen wrote: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.
Debian, openSUSE, Mandriva/Mageia, CentOS?veggen wrote: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?
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./dev/urandom wrote:Correctly. So all operating systems are charity products then. Good to know, but I'll still prefer the ad-free ones.veggen wrote: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.
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./dev/urandom wrote:Debian, openSUSE, Mandriva/Mageia, CentOS?veggen wrote: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?
(And their derivatives; in case of Debian there are a lot.)
Why would it be? It's a Unity lens. Mint has nothing to do with Unity. That's why we love itRJim wrote:if this is in the next version of Mint
So does anyone really support that?veggen wrote:No OS is a charity product, but they each have their own business models (Ubuntu's is to have ads)
Yes, the choice to use a different OS. Not necessarily a Linux OS.veggen wrote:This is Linux. No single company (even if it's Canonical) can ever corner you, because you *always* have choice.
Why not?veggen wrote:CentOS is a server OS, and not applicable here.
Why? What exactly is missing for you?veggen wrote:Debian is far from user friendly
Ubuntu is popular because PC magazines for beginners say it's the best thing since sliced bread.veggen wrote:or Ubuntu and Mint wouldn't have been so popular.
Many Mandriva users switched.veggen wrote:Mageia is a new comer, so again, not applicable.
More details please.veggen wrote:Mandriva? Seriously?