Linux allows making more (free and customizable) foil shields but nothing is fully secure and if you trust in corporations for whatever "simplifications" your hat more than likely will dawn horns...

Personally, I do not like the principle. We install spyware, automatic connections to Amazon/Ebay, cameras in your shower, whatever, and if you, the user, do not want such things, it is up to you to discover that the unwanted "features" are present, and then figure out how to disable them.

People who claim to be concerned about the privacy of their personal information, but post personal information on Facebook and have a Google+ account.

Nope - the unity lens is ubuntu specific thing, not just a file search utility (there are countless other means to earch files) it behaves like google does or like firefox safebrowsing does. It feeds back your searches to canonical/amazon... I don't mind if someone sees that I'm searching on my computer for some file or other or some app (windows 8.1 metro works the same way) - especially if I can turn it off, but I'm a little more concerned if my typed URLs, mistyped URLs and searches are all being logged against me by a 3rd party...

I did not find it at all surprising as I managed to find out what buntu were all about back in 2007/2008 and jumped ship... users who stay around and whined and complained only have themselves to blame. You can't really influence a Linux distro, not buntu, not Debian, not Arch or even Slackware - you are along for the ride and get to use the finished product for free, if the distro does something you don't like, you can move on - you can't expect to behave like angry consumers and tell them what to do. I still don't get the outrage with the unity shopping lens, vs say firefox's or chrome's google spyware or buntu pushing proprietary software like ubuntu one.


Well of course it was enabled by default... it's a commercial thing, a revenue stream... savvy users - i.e. those that care turn it off - in the same way that those who care about being spied on by google turn the spyware off in their browser, or block ads, trackers, scripts, etc - those who don't care, leave it all on.
You're making assumptions for "most people". Let me make some: Most people actually know little about browser hosted spyware such as safebrowsing and most people seem to use smartphones, cloud stuff, skype, etc and really either don't know nor care about their privacy. Most people are not IT professionals or any kind of "computer expert". google did this, made billions out of it, still does it and gets away with it. canonical did the same *once* for a shell they wholly funded and developed - I admit stupidly - and were called out for it. Instead of users just switching to a different DE/WM or changing distro there was ridiculous outrage. What I still don't get is - why were people so surprised? Did you assume that unity was a 100% free software project developed commercially at huge cost by paid canonical developers for users to use for nothing at all and then complain about when they tried to recoup their costs (as mozilla have been doing for many years)? The mozilla google spyware is also on by default - it's up to the user to turn it off. I see little difference. Mozilla is an app, unity is just an app.

Wrong.

For me is shocking to run hiden stuff without users knowledge, is not the fact of running the "spyware" is the fact of not let the user known there is a hiden service runing by default. This type of attitude is very common in private closed software world (aka Microsoft), GNU/Linux is freedom, GPL, sharing, nothing hiden. But Canonical have always gone their own way, is not uncommon to view the news of Canonical releasing again their linux distro with their own X server, with their own kernel, with their own package manager, with their own etc, etc, etc. (I am not saying Canonical have develop their own kernel, or package manager, etc) What I,m saying is, that is typical from Canonical to release something called *Linux* but very different from the rest of Linux distros.

Again - mozilla products are doing the same thing - worse in fact - most people don't know/care or complain. It's not shocking, it's become common practice - and if you don't like it, avoid it. (you are usually informed, but it's usually buried in the licence agreement/terms of use somewhere, which no one ever bothers to read...)

I can see the technical difference - searching on ones own pc rather than the web, but in practice there's not a lot of difference - as I'd bet someone logging your browser searches/habits could find out a lot more about you than monitoring what files you search for locally. This 'technology' has been introduced and driven by the masses lying back and accepting it. canonical have not led the way in this, they've just followed suit.

I wouldn't use a desktop that works like unity or comes bundled with spyware - that's my whole point - if end users vote with their feet instead of procrastinating, canonical ltd would have sat up and taken notice. complaining on butnut forums or posting rants on random blogs is not enough.

Proprietary/closed is not just outright evil. There are big corporations using open source software in proprietary ways. It's not a black and white situation. There are also private small operations producing good quality proprietary programs for business to put food on the table. They are not damaging anything or anyone and should be "free" to continue doing so.


It can be, but not necessarily always and not 100% - example ubuntu...

A lot of distros go their own way. Slackware do things very differently to e.g. Red Hat and gentoo do things differently to e.g. OpenSUSE. Distros "go their own way", that's kind of the whole point of distros. They don't need to be all the same - again that makes distros pointless. There are some out their who do find distros pointless and are planning a big revolution where they will no longer be needed - and that's not coming from the usual bogeyman canonical/shuttleworth.

cynwulf

You say I am wrong about google search and/or google chrome?

Here is how to be safe and prevent tracking in google chrome.
Don't use apps
Don't login in with your google account.
Set your home page to www.google.com or whatever you like.
clear you cache including cookies


If you already done this, you can do the following
First you unlink your apps from google
log out of google
clear you cache including cookies
Set your home page to www.google.com or whatever you like.

As far as google search itself,
For any browser clear you cache including cookies.
Don't sign into to google

Now your name or google account won't be tied to a google search.

All:
Mozilla informs you and tells you how to disable information and it is not hidden.

You can make windows just as secure as Linux, it is just the know how. I don't like windows 8 or 10 because of the contrast issue, I need low contrast, not high do to my eyes. What ticks me off about windows 10 or above, I want to be in control of what comes into my computer, Not Microsoft or their Oems.

None of that will make an ounce of difference if google's built in tracking is turned on. With it turned off it still won't make much difference, if you use google and visit different sites which use google tracking. If you think that clearing your cache and not logging into a google account is all it takes, I would suggest doing a little more research.
Mozilla informs you where and how exactly? Like anything else, you have to hunt for the checkboxes and/or go into about:config to turn the shit off and search the web to even know about it in the first place (which most don't). i.e. you get a "free" browser - funded by google - who fund it for a reason. It's up to you, the end user, to find out the facts and configure the thing so that it's not tracking your every move - or just don't use a google funded browser (opera/mozilla/chrome).

Why would they?, the majority of *untu users are people that are starting to use linux, and *untu most of the time is their first linux attempt. I am not saying that all *untu users are novice, but more than a half of them are just users who want to search on internet, listen to music, vids, etc. Not users with intentions to became IT admin or even work in IT enviroment.


Yes, there are big corporations using native "open source BSD license code" in closed-propietary ways...example, Microsoft, SUN (today Oracle), IBM and others. AGain, I am not saying that is evil because of been closed or open, I insist is evil to not let known the final user what is happening with their personal info.


There are thousands of linux distros around, each one with their own configuration tools, package managers, etc. But in the deep inside, they all work on similar way since they,re all using GNU apps...in the case of Ubuntu and all *untu flavours, is different because Canonical always is trying to integrate their own stuff (and I am not talking about config tools, package managers, etc) I am talking about, Canonical replacing GNU software with their own developed software, making it look like there are 3 popular OS, Windows, Linux and *Untu.

Hi,
You know this how? Numbers or just your speculation(s) on your part?
What about admins/IT that must review or maintain same within their environment?
You qualify this by reading GNU/GPL/BSD license for all the companies you sited. How would that be 'native' if the quoted companies modify to suit their needs?
Buyer/User be aware!
I am sure there are multiple GNU/Linux but I am curious as the where you got the total number of Gnu/Linux? FUD or fact? Similarities because GNU/Linux use like software.

I prefer to look at how the GNU/Linux manages/maintains along with configurations. You may notice that I use Slackware GNU/Linux and the big reason is that I know what to expect from the maintainer to provide a stable GNU/Linux distribution. I will admit that Ubuntu is unique in it's own evolution(s). Bastardize a piece of open source then call their own does not follow GNU nor GPL agreements. I guess if you include the source then that allows one to call it their own as long as you include the original notifications. Who reads them all the time? Only when your interested in the source content! God forbid someone would read source code to actually see what has been done to modify to suit their needs. Instead of spreading FUD or speculation(s).

I am not defending Ubuntu, I will leave that to interested members. Just when you present a post, be sure to include support information instead of FUD/Speculation(s).

Not attacking, just questioning your statements for validity or just plain old FUD spreading?

No matter how "secure" you make either one, one or the other owns you! As opposed to something like Blag...

Applications? Do you mean add-ons?
It is not necessary to use a Google account for them to track users through search engine activity. An account simply gives them more information.

Again, your opinion seeems to be based on the assumption that the search engine does not collect information. Google tracks the activity of millions of people who do not have google accounts.

If you have a Google account and you use Google's search engine without being logged into your account, do you really believe they cannot figure out who you are?

Yep, the comment was a simplification.

You wont find an argument from me with regards to this but that is not what your original comment said. You said
and then went on to comment about people being sheeples. This comment is not an accurate reflection of the reality of the situation at the time. The complaints weren't about Dash but rather the fact its "spying" was turned on by default.

I don't think that users who stayed around should blame themselves for wanting to help the Foss ecosystem. After all Ubuntu advertises that it is made up of volunteers who work to make it better (see comment at the end for a quote).

I agree you can't tell them what to do but you can voice your disappointment.

More like you don't want to get it, and that's fine. I've explained in 2 posts in reply to you now what the general issue was with Dash. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean others can't (I see it and I stopped using Ubuntu a fair while before they introduced it).

It was an invasion of privacy that people did not expect from Ubuntu.

Following on from your assumptions.
I disagree.
Most people aren't experts of anything but they are aware of things.
The "ridiculous outrage" as you call it was for the way they did it not for the shell itself. Is it wrong for people to voice disappointment for the business methods of a company? You must think it is because it wasn't just Ubuntu users who complained. It was the same with Wayland many complained about the business methods used for the Mir decision. If Canonical had developed Mir from scratch there wouldn't have been half the outcry but they didn't. Instead they "helped" develop Wayland and then took off and developed Mir using what was already in Wayland as a starting point. There was no real descision to help Wayland mature they just wanted a head start for Mir.
You don't have to get it, you go your way and let others go theirs.
Did I assume? I never assume anything when money is involved but lets be fair and understand that for years the Ubuntu website said Ubuntu is free and always will be free, it may not say that anymore but it certainly did while I was using it. It was well known Canonical's income stream was supposed to come from support services (similar to Red Hat). Peoples expectations, whether they were right or wrong is another issue altogether, of Ubuntu was that it "just worked", "was free" as in freedom, not that the OS itself was going to spy on you.

Even now they say
There is not one mention of money or funding streams for "home users" but they make a point of talking about volunteers. (They do talk about a "fee" for support to business which was always the intended primary funding stream for Canonical).

Google Search my track you, but they don't know who you are. I know this from doing research. That why I delete my cache and Internet history in my Seamonkey browser. Very simple to do Ctrl+Shift+Delete key. I check everything everything except save passwords. This work for most browser.



As soon as you start Mozilla browser for the first time or 2nd time, there is a little pop-up in the bottom right corner that say Choose what to share or something similar. You can find the settings in preferences as well.



Randicus Draco Albus

No, I don't mean add-ons. Well technically it is an add-on but Google doesn't call it that, because apps run outside of the browser. For example in windows 7 you can put the weather channel apps on the taskbar or google app launcher, I think Ubuntu has something similar. Chrome you have to unlink you apps, that is different setting to prevent you from being tracked in google chrome and this removes you google email from chrome.

What is there to disagree about? Most people know nothing about how browsers work and internet spying/security. Just as most people have no idea how a car's engine combines air and fuel inside cylinders to move pistons that turn a crankshaft. All they know is that when the key is turned, the engine starts and the vehicle moves. In the same way, most people know that when the cursor is moved above an icon and a mouse button is clicked, the browser opens. Nothing more.

Misrepresentation or lying? I agree that users had a right to feel betrayed, but when people are mislead by misinformation and lies, the smart thing to do is switch distributions. What most Ubuntu users did does not make sense. They complained, but continued using the system. (Although Buntu users are not the only people displaying this odd behaviour. Many Debian users are currently complaining about systemd being forced on them, but most of them have no intention of switching to other OSes. Complain for a while, then fall back in line. So Ubuntu users are not terribly unusual.)