201–210 of 304 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bzzt, logical fallacy - "either work for free, or snoop around in user's data for monetizable content." Hint: there's a very, very wide spectrum between these extremes.
Bzzt, middlebrow dismissal. How about you make a concrete proposal on how you think Canonical's business model should be constructed, instead of "computer says no"?
I (still) don't think online searches are a privacy violation. 1) It's a search box. Stuff not typed in the search box never leaves the machine (unless you count things that do by design, such as web browsers and email, obviously). 2) It's plainly obvious the first time you use it that results are coming back from the Internet. No real user is going to be misled into believing that searches are local. This makes it n…
The Unity Dash search box is placed where every user would normally expect a local-only search to happen. There is no reason whatsoever for me to expect the Unity Dash search to return results from the Internet, just like I wouldn't expect the search box in Windows 7 Start Menu to do so.
This kind of behavior that plays with users' expectations is common in UI dark patterns.
2) It's plainly obvious the first time you use it that results are coming back from the Internet. No real user is going to be misled into believing that searches are local. This makes it no more a privacy violation than the default Google search box in Firefox.
Your example with Firefox is misleading, because Firefox is a browser, which automatically creates different expectation of privacy: it is quite normal for a search box in a Web browser to search the Web.
Also, note that you're essentially saying that there is no privacy violation past the first time it happens. This is more or less the equivalent of saying that once you've fallen for an advance fee fraud the first time, it's not a scam anymore.
2b) There is a prominent notice saying so. If you don't think it's prominent enough, see point 2.
I disagree that it's prominent enough. So do many other users and you know it, otherwise you wouldn't have bothered to write that second sentence.
3) It's a search box that didn't exist previously. Canonical invented it. I think it's reasonable for Canonical to create a "search the universe" mechanism on the desktop. Fair enough if you don't like it, or don't want to use it. It's trivial to turn it off (there's even a global Privacy Settings dialog) or to use other searches. But that doesn't suddenly make it a privacy violation; nor the results of your search "ads".
None of the dark patterns or privacy violations seen elsewhere existed before they were invented. The fact that they didn't exist before has nothing to do with the intentions behind them or the effects they have. It might be new, you might like it and it might be trivial to turn off, but none of that makes it any less of a privacy violation.
In short, you're using misleading and circular arguments: there's no privacy violation because Canonical changed the behavior of the search box and you should learn to expect it. No wonder you state that the downvoters are "unable" to respond.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bzzt, middlebrow dismissal. How about you make a concrete proposal on how you think Canonical's business model should be constructed, instead of "computer says no"?
Honestly, the world doesn't owe Canonical a business model. They don't get to do whatever they like and not suffer criticism.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you read the part explaining what each of the commands does...?
Did you read the linked article? It doesn't matter what it looks like you're copying/pasting, or how it's explained in the site you're copying/pasting it from.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's a search box that many people will use exclusively to search for _local_ content. That still doesn't make it a privacy violation, since you know where your searches are going (as does any other user, since it's obvious based on the results). > Why should Amazon know what programs and files I'm using? It makes the normal user's life more convenient since he doesn't need to figure out which box to type something…
I don't think its a privacy violation, and Canonical has been open about their actions, but I think it's a crummy setup. On my mac, both spotlight and alfred (the 3rd-party application launcher I use) are capable of searching both my computer and the web, and neither send my file searches to the internet.
Regarding that "disclaimer" in the corner, here's why it was added: https://micahflee.com/2013/11/canonical-shouldnt-abuse-trade...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bzzt, middlebrow dismissal. How about you make a concrete proposal on how you think Canonical's business model should be constructed, instead of "computer says no"?
Honestly, the world doesn't owe Canonical a business model. They don't get to do whatever they like and not suffer criticism.
The alternative (well polished, reasonably easy/user friendly) is apple and windows. No more free.
I think much criticism is shallow.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with other distros is the lack of a design. Ubuntu was the first Linux distro I used that did not look like a donkey's ass (back in 2008~). Even today's Gnome Shell does not look as good as Unity... it also does not scale well for my display's 1600x900 resolution (top bar icons are way too small). The other distros might work well technically, but imho they don't look as good and they require more tweakin…
That is completely subjective. A lot of people hate Unity, the same way people hate every DE that exists. So much so that some do not even use a DE. Using a DE as an argument for Ubuntu's advantage is weak as they're usually ambiguous. I say usually because it tends to be that Unity, like Mir, isn't really adopted into any other distribution in official repositories. Even more so after Mir's release, since it'll be d…
I (still) don't think online searches are a privacy violation. 1) It's a search box. Stuff not typed in the search box never leaves the machine (unless you count things that do by design, such as web browsers and email, obviously). 2) It's plainly obvious the first time you use it that results are coming back from the Internet. No real user is going to be misled into believing that searches are local. This makes it n…
Clear positive opt in - Good
Opt out (even if fairly easy) - clear privacy violation (bad)
The snide comment in your edit earned you a downvote from me.