Ubuntu's New Firefox Is Watching You 330
sukotto writes "Ubuntu recently released an unannounced and experimental 'multisearch' extension to Firefox alpha 3, apparently in an effort to improve the default behavior of new tabs and of search. In a response to one of the initial bug reports the maintainers mentioned that the extension's other purposes were 'collecting the usage data' and 'generating revenue.' Since this extension installs by itself and offers no warning about potential privacy violations, quite a few people (myself included) feel pretty unhappy. The only way to opt out is to disable the extension manually via Tools > Add-ons." Most posters to this Ubuntu forum thread are not happy about multisearch.
Not new (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not actually far away from how Firefox generates its revenue too - from ad clicks in Google search and by direct sponsoring from Google.
The two main ways to monetarize and support OSS projects is giving support and ads. In the later case you always lose some of your privacy. Developing Linux and its distro's need money aswell. You could choose a distro that is financed in other way (maybe by you), use commercial software that doesn't do this or be fine with generating some ad income to support the development. "Perfect" package is usually impossible to obtain because of financial limitations.
Google is build completely around this model too and it seems to work good for them - even if people lose some of their privacy. Hell, slashdot is maintained by ad revenue too. Another distro that also does same kind of stuff is Linux Mint.
Its nothing new, but it might surprise those who believe in pure, not-revenue-generating OSS. It's how the free for user projects are financed.
Re:Not new (Score:5, Insightful)
Outrage calibration (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Outrage calibration (Score:5, Informative)
ICEWEASEL!
# apt-get update
Get:1 http://your.favorite.mirror/ [your.favorite.mirror] sid Release.gpg [378B]
Get:2 http://your.favorite.mirror/ [your.favorite.mirror] sid Release [79.6kB]
Get:3 http://your.favorite.mirror/ [your.favorite.mirror] sid/main Packages [4514kB]
Get:4 http://your.favorite.mirror/ [your.favorite.mirror] sid/main Sources [1280kB]
Fetched 5874kB in 11s (523kB/s)
Reading package lists... Done
# apt-get install iceweasel ... 68428 files and directories currently installed.) .../iceweasel_2.0+dfsg-1_powerpc.deb) ... ...
Reading package lists... Done
Building dependency tree... Done
Suggested packages:
iceweasel-gnome-support latex-xft-fonts xprint mozplugger
The following NEW packages will be installed:
iceweasel
0 upgraded, 1 newly installed, 0 to remove and 3 not upgraded.
Need to get 8933kB of archives.
After unpacking 27.2MB of additional disk space will be used.
Get:1 http://your.favorite.mirror/ [your.favorite.mirror] sid/main iceweasel 2.0+dfsg-1 [8933kB]
Fetched 8933kB in 9s (975kB/s)
Selecting previously deselected package iceweasel.
(Reading database
Unpacking iceweasel (from
Setting up iceweasel (2.0+dfsg-1)
Please restart any running Iceweasels, or you will experience problems.
# _
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_IceCat [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Segmentation fault
Re:Outrage calibration (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Both are annoying but one is a lesser evil and while Linux is still primarily a OS for more advanced users, they shouldn't really have a problem with this.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There is nothing the least bit evil about the .NET extension, autistic man-children just threw a bitchfit because the word "Microsoft" makes them confused and angry.
Notice the lack of anger about the intrusive Apple QuickTime plugin, which fucks over Firefox's MIME handling and is practically impossible to remove.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That included the
It's not my fault that the only two things that are/were impossible to remove were from MS. It just proves that their more morally corrupt than other companies. Apple isn't much better but they are better.
Re:Outrage calibration (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Outrage calibration (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're being absurd. You might as well ask me if I do a full hand trace of each byte of compiled machine code. (including the OS)
How would I reasonably check such a thing? Do you expect me to run my primary OS on a virtual machine and compare images before and after updates? That's insane. (and that's only the most reasonable approach to your suggestion)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Outrage calibration (Score:4, Insightful)
Part of the problem, if not the larger problem, is the ability to install extensions in FF without being able to remove them. Thats a FF feature. Why is it even there? The MS devs saw it and chose it because they probably didnt want end users screwing up .net too easily. If you want the power to do an easy GUI-based uninstall you need to tell the Firefox people to do so. That will stop further abuse of this feature.
Re:Outrage calibration (Score:4, Insightful)
Lack? that thing pisses me off. I honestly couldn't care any less about the .Net plugin, I'm a teensy bit miffed that installed without so much as asking, but at least it didn't FUBAR my media settings and force all .mpg and .avi files to attempt to play in-browser through their shitty plugin that doesn't even work and throws a thousand error messages every time, rather than do what I actually want (open and play in VLC). Maybe I'd be pissed about Microsoft's stealth plugin if I had some other awesome way of running .Net web-apps, but I honestly can't think of any that I have even seen, let alone actually use or would care how they open.
Oh yeah, I call bullshit on Ubuntu. They shouldn't have stealthed that in, and because they didn't I will uninstall it ASAP (once I reboot into Ubuntu, that is). If they had announced it, even put a little window on the screen asking if it would be ok to install it, pretty pretty please with sugar on top, we promise it won't hurt and it will help us generate some revenue so that we can keep working on the project... I honestly would have said yes. I wouldn't really mind if they collect some data and make money off of it so long as it doesn't noticeably degrade performance and so long as they told me about it first, but that doesn't mean I take kindly to anyone presuming it's ok for them to do so without my knowledge and permission.
Re:Outrage calibration (Score:5, Informative)
There does not seem to be any intention of deploying data mining extensions in any release. It would be nice if there was a little more warning in the dev version, but this doesn't seem malicious. Just a tool to help the developers optimize the custom search UI -- which in turn would generate additional revenue for Ubuntu because more people will choose to use it if it is very well done.
Re:Outrage calibration (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Outrage calibration (Score:4, Insightful)
>What about Bittorrent's "stealth" firefox add-on?
Or the quicktime add-on that screws over the MIME settings?
I really wish slashdot was a more even keeled place. Its anti-MS all the time, which takes away time from other offenders, many of which are much more serious.
Re:Outrage calibration (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Outrage calibration (Score:5, Informative)
"Ubuntu needs all the good press they can get, I don't understand why they would risk it."
That's pretty funny considering Ubuntu is still in the lead on DistroWatch on all timespans except the last week. For the last week an Ubuntu derivative Linux Mint is number 1 with Ubuntu at number 2.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Upstream = X.org. Ubuntu 9.04 (Jaunty) has 7.4 [ubuntu.com], while Debian Lenny has 7.3 [debian.org].
I know MS had it, and it would have been a usability nightmare then, except it did not stick out among the many others and it was the 80ies/early 90ies and computing was not mainstream yet.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Outrage calibration (Score:5, Informative)
It's not data mining. If anyone actually read TFA, the extension just makes the default "new tab" page the standard Ubuntu-themed google search. And, like always, if you use their search service they will log your search. It's the same as before, except instead of only seeing the ubuntu search on your home page, you see it on every new tab.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think one of the main differences is that MS did it when installing something completely unrelated. Why would you think that Firefox would be altered for a dot net installation? However, for a Firefox installation you would expect Firefox to be altered.
However, there should be outrage over the actions or behavior of the plugin. I just don't think it is the same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, that was also due to the fact that you couldn't easily uninstall it - the uninstall options were all disabled, and you had to do some deep mucking in the registry and obscure directories to get rid of it completely.
I assume this can be uninstalled the normal way. I don't like it - so there should be some outrage - but I don't think it's as pernicious as the .Net one.
Re:Outrage calibration (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Outrage calibration (Score:5, Informative)
1) This is the default browser, and Ubuntu shipped it with modifications for years. That they would change the nature of those modifications in an update is hardly surprising. .NET was unremovable through the add-ons dialog, which was the primary reason people were pissed. Ubuntu's really done nothing to break the user trust here. You don't like it, remove it, it will take all of 10 seconds, and be completely gone.
2) The summary says the only way to disable it is by using the add-ons dialog, as if that were some onerous distinction.
Also, it's clear this won't make it into the release candidate. That is the value of an open source OS with a public bug tracker, in which the most minor problems (and the most vitriolic responses) are archived and freely available on the internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If Ubuntu fix this issue, we also won't hear of it -- it won't make the front page of Slashdot.
Re:Outrage calibration (Score:4, Funny)
Yes, we will. If Ubuntu changes the shade of their logo it'll make the front page of Slashdot.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The difference is that we all know that Google is a giant Advertiser.
Most people are under the impression that Ubuntu is a free OS, not an Ad Sponsored/Data mining revenue oriented OS.
Free as in speech (Score:5, Insightful)
Most people are under the impression that Ubuntu is a free OS, not an Ad Sponsored/Data mining revenue oriented OS.
Canonical is Free to distribute a computer program that watches how people use it as long as people who use the program know what's going on. But because Firefox/Iceweasel/whatever is free software, you are also Free to download the source code, rip out the data mining, and rebuild it, or to hire someone to do so for you.
Re:Free as in speech (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't that supposed to be the main argument for "Free" (as in source code available / modifiable) source? That you don't have to trust the vendor to tell you what's going on, you can see for yourself? Why is it that when MS releases something, everyone darkly talks about hidden backdoors, but when an open source vendor releases someone, people complain that the vendor wasn't completely forthcoming in the release notes?
Re:Free as in speech (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is it that when MS releases something, everyone darkly talks about hidden backdoors, but when an open source vendor releases someone, people complain that the vendor wasn't completely forthcoming in the release notes?
Because not everybody has the skill and time to decipher megabytes of source code, especially potentially obfuscated source code. Nor does everybody have the money to hire someone to do so. Also because free software is the relative newcomer and it has to be better in order to displace its entrenched proprietary counterparts.
Re: (Score:2)
source code available / modifiable
I doubt that there are that many Ubuntu users that know how the program or read the source and understand it though. Ubuntu's supposed to be a user friendly Linux distro for the masses.
Why is it that when MS releases something, everyone darkly talks about hidden backdoors, but when an open source vendor releases someone, people complain that the vendor wasn't completely forthcoming in the release notes?
What's the difference between MS's backdoors and Ubuntu's backdoors if
Re:Free as in speech (Score:5, Insightful)
Canonical is Free to distribute a computer program that watches how people use it as long as people who use the program know what's going on. But because Firefox/Iceweasel/whatever is free software, you are also Free to download the source code, rip out the data mining, and rebuild it, or to hire someone to do so for you.
Emphasis mine.
The problem here is that Canonical did not ask for permission.
For the record, I would be perfectly willing to use a reasonably private datamining program to support Ubuntu, as long as everyone is clearly informed on what it can do and what it can't.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally, I think it's a bit creepy for Canonical to capture revenues from whatever is installed in Firefox. There's significant participation from outside Canonical -- what prevents an Ubuntu Developer not affiliated with Canonical from taking the relatively simple steps to sell other changes to the highest bidder? Imagine if a Liferea maintainer started accepting payments to include feeds by default. What stops another developer from removing them and placing their own paid feeds?
Its hard to come up wit
some choice words on software installer EQs (Score:3, Insightful)
The level of skill it implies, the time and the money, is out of reach of any ordinary user.
This would be an extraordinarily hard sentiment to formally define. How far back in history does one need to go to say the same about literacy? How far would one need to travel in the present world? Long before your definition reaches bedrock, it all becomes relative to a social construct.
Two of the great innovations of our number system (positional representation, and the digit zero) were incredible aids to making numeracy less "out of reach" for ever larger segments of the population.
The upward swing o
Re:Not new (Score:5, Informative)
This is different. In this case Firefox is the browser that is supposed to protect your privacy and security. Your browser is supposed to do a job - and it isn't collecting data on you. If the program is going to execute on your CPU and collect data about you to send to someone else, it should be very clear about that intention. This sounds like Firefox has become a Trojan. I wonder if my anti-virus software will warn me about it.
Re:Not new (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Its nothing new, but it might surprise those who believe in pure, not-revenue-generating OSS. It's how the free for user projects are financed.
That is really not the problem - at least for me. You can gather user data, you can generate income with it, but you do need my permission. You can't do that without a clear notice.
Re: (Score:2)
I dont mind linux mint though....its a nice free product.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The highest single source of revenue for Linux Mint isn't the donations, it isn't ads on the website, it is the default start page in Firefox. This simple search plugin is estimated to generated from 2 to 40 times more money than the start page itself.
(source [linuxmint.com])
I know I won't be disabling this extension. It's a no-effort, free-as-in-beer way of supporting my favourite OS.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I know I won't be disabling this extension. It's a no-effort, free-as-in-beer way of supporting my favourite OS.
You don't think Canonical should have asked for your permission first?
Re:Not new (Score:5, Insightful)
Lots of people like sex. Very few people like to be raped. The difference is in the consent. Same situation here.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Whoa, now. Hold on a second!! (Score:3, Insightful)
The FIRST thing I did was to look at my Firefox to see if I had this search function. Nada. I opened up Synaptic to see if it were available. Nope.
So, I checked out the links offered in the article.
WHOOO-HOOO!!
We are talking about an ALPHA thingamabob. Alpha. Test stuff. Meaning that, the people who have the addon VOLUNTEERED to install and TEST the thing.
TFA is a little bit of grandstanding by a drama llama. This addon is going to be tested, the community will determine if it's useful, and whether i
Re: (Score:2)
My thoughts exactly. Nothing immoral about datamining your user base, so long as you give informed consent and allow an easy opt-out.
Why not Debian? Debian runs rings around Ubuntu performance-wise IME, and there's no real learning curve coming from Ubuntu.
Re:Not new (Score:4, Informative)
"Debian has no problems violating its free software guidelines to include non-free firmware in its distribution"
In which part of either main or contrib can you find non-free firmware now? Because having freely distributable non-free software on non-free is and always has been quite within Debian's guidelines, you know... (or are you just trolling?)
Re: (Score:2)
>>>Installing it without any notification does.
Microsoft did the same thing to Firefox about two months ago. I guess all megacorporations including Apple and Ubuntu Linix eventually succumb to MS-like practices. The only people you can trust are the non-corporations (aka individuals).
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/02/centos_alive/ [theregister.co.uk]
by linking to a response of an article I guess I'm not doing my own argument any favours =D (hey at least I'm honest)
but maybe you should hold off a bit before leaping into what could become a company that disappears over night. Something canonical are unlikely to do.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The add-on doesn't bother me.
Installing it without any notification does.
I work for a company which has standardized on Ubuntu, but I'm pushing for them to switch to CentOS. This is just another bullet in my arsenal.
So you were planning to install Alpha 3 in your company?
Big projects need funding (Score:4, Insightful)
There's no point denying it: Big projects need funding. Funding creates dependencies. Since there is no way around the need for funding, it is of utmost importance that dependencies and privacy implications are disclosed. So Ubuntu: FAIL.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I can deal with advertising and such. Spying on me is something completely different.
Splatter ads all over my screen and I'll get annoyed but continue on. You start watching what I do, log what web sites I visit, analyze who I'm talking to, and other invasion of privacy stuff and I'll get angry. Angry enough to stop using whatever shit you're peddling.
Yes I know Google does this but that's a single external point that I can watch out for. I can choose to block their ads/tracking stuff or use a proxy. I
And that's not all... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:And that's not all... (Score:5, Funny)
Which is it? (Score:2)
Youth in Asia, or old people? You aren't even making any sense and you spelled 'youth' wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
There's an App for that! (Score:2)
yadda yadda yadda.
Re: (Score:2)
I hear the Ubuntu extension also has a feature for euthanasia of old people.
And I *still* haven't seen it's long-form birth certificate!
WHARRGARBL! (Score:2)
How dare you insult the Obamessiah! You just wait until I perfect the device that lets me stab people in the face over the Internet.
Do not panic (Score:5, Informative)
That is what alpha releases are for, after all: testing. Admittedly, the devs could have bothered to mention that they were planning this, but it's better that they did it here than in the final release.
Re: (Score:2)
The multisearch add-on was only intended for the pre-release versions, as part of a research project. It will NOT be included in the final Karmic release.
Citation please?
Note that we did not necessarily foresee Multisearch as code that we would ship in a stable release. Whatever actions we take in response to the information and feedback will depend on the information and feedback that we collect from this effort.
That's quite a different statement.
Re:Do not panic (Score:4, Insightful)
The multisearch add-on was only intended for the pre-release versions, as part of a research project. It is very unlikely that it will be included in the final Karmic release in the same form as its current incarnation.
There, fixed that for me.
My point was, anyway, that the Ubuntu devs didn't intend to make this Multisearch a part of Firefox as we know it. Some of the same concepts, maybe, but they will assuredly be more fleshed out, more intuitive, than in the Alphas. And next time, maybe they'll tell us first?
Linux Mint had this already... (Score:4, Interesting)
I installed Linux Mint about a month ago looking for a new Linux distribution to put on a cheap laptop I had just gotten. All the search pages, no matter where I searched, were coming up branded "Linux Mint". Didn't take too long for me to get annoyed at this, especially when I found out there was no way whatsoever to remove the addon from Firefox. I ended up downloading the mozilla.com distributed package and overwriting the symlinks by hand. Mint is based on Ubuntu, but my 9.04 installs don't have this in there. I guess this is one "innovation" that made it back up the food chain. Personally embarassing for me, since I had just finished recommending Linux Mint to several friends, aquaintances, and customers.
Vanilla Firefox Build (Score:5, Informative)
0. Once prerequisites are installed on Ubuntu,
1. Download the source:
ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/3.5.2/source/firefox-3.5.2-source.tar.bz2
2. Unpack source:
tar xvfj firefox-3.5.2-source.tar.bz2
3. Create .mozconfig in the top-level directory:
. $topsrcdir/browser/config/mozconfig
mk_add_options MOZ_OBJDIR=@TOPSRCDIR@/objdir-ff-release
mk_add_options MOZ_MAKE_FLAGS="-j4"
ac_add_options --enable-optimize
export CFLAGS="-gstabs+"
export CXXFLAGS="-gstabs+"
4. make -f client.mk
5. Enjoy objdir-ff-release/dist/bin/firefox
Re:Vanilla Firefox Build (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe I'm misinterpreting the summary, but isn't the multisearch deal part of the Ubuntu add-on, not Firefox itself?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Evil Evil Monk.... (Score:2)
Penguin?
Watching you from the closet...
I know it's a money issue... (Score:2)
I'm not bothered by Canonical wanting to leverage potential sources of revenue. They're providing me with a service free of charge, as is Google.
I'm bothered by the fact that it replaced the normal Google UI with something less usable. I'm also bothered that they used a Firefox extension rather than using a standard search engine plugin, making it much more difficult to undo.
Browsers. (Score:2, Insightful)
Epiphany is available in Ubuntu -- it also looks a hell of a lot nicer with GNOME than FF does. Give it a try.
--saint
Re: (Score:2)
Can Epiphany remember my tabs from my last session? Apparently only if it crashes. That's rather infuriating -- they implemented 95% of the feature but didn't put in a GUI and a gconf key for it.
Re:Browsers. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
i knew it was coming (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Um, actually, it's "Gram-ma Nazis".
Strange Screenshots (Score:2)
The screenshots are odd. They all look the same to me and they look like a login page to that forum, not anything to do with Google at all.
On a side note, does anyone know how to completely disable Firefox from opening new tabs without permission? I've tried to disable it every way I can and I've mostly got it, but every so often I run into a website like this Ubuntu forum that somehow nevertheless manages to force Firefox to open a new tab.
Why is it that web "designers" can't understand that I have perfect
New Tag Request (Score:2)
Iceweasel (Score:2)
FTW! Free as in "we don't spy on you".
it has been added in a alpha cycle (Score:5, Informative)
And so it begins... (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok, I guess is time to start looking at alternatives. Not saying I will switch but I better keep options open.
Any user-friendly, easy to install linux distribution like Ubuntu around? (Fedora need not to apply, btw)
Preferably one without that pulseaudio crap installed by default...
Re:And so it begins... (Score:4, Interesting)
This is a complete non-issue (Score:2, Informative)
The Ubuntu modification uses an Ubuntu custom Google search, rather than the Mozilla custom Google search. Google collects the same data in both cases; the only difference is that, with the Ubuntu search, Ubuntu gets to see aggregates information about popular searches, while, with the Mozilla custom search, Mozilla gets to see this aggregated information. In both cases, Google are the only people who get individually identifiable information about searches. Ubuntu isn't "watching you" any more than Mozilla
The Real Issue (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think anyone begrudges Ubuntu taking advantage of a perfectly acceptable revenue model. That's not the problem here.
The problem is that Ubuntu is shipping a modified version of Firefox instead of the default Firefox shipped by Mozilla. Sure, both Ubuntu and Debian ship patched versions of just about every package they include in the repository. But the overwhelming majority of those patches don't noticeably effect the user experience.
Firefox, on the other hand, is pretty much the #1 most important part of the user experience in Ubuntu. It's the application most people are going to use more than anything else. In fact, after Ubuntu is installed, the user will probably spend more time interacting with Firefox than with all the rest of Ubuntu combined. It's not inaccurate to say it's a Firefox machine, as opposed to an Ubuntu or Linux machine.
Since Firefox is the most important part of the user experience, the users don't want Firefox changed in any way. They want the default Firefox as shipped by Mozilla. They don't want the named changed to Shiretoko or IceWeasel. They don't want the icons changed. They don't want weird extensions that change behaviour. They also don't want updates to come from Ubuntu repositories, as they do for every other package. They want the newest version of Firefox from Mozilla at the exact moment that Mozilla ships it.
I understand the reasoning behind Ubuntu and Debians policies, but I think it is obvious that Firefox trumps Ubuntu. They should make a special exception for it. Just ship the raw Firefox as released by Mozilla. Don't modify it in any way whatsoever. The world is just getting more browser centric. The operating system is just the code that talks between the browser and the hardware. You can do anything you want to the OS, but don't touch the browser or you'll lose all the users you worked so hard to gain.
yup, it's a browser world (Score:3, Interesting)
(The other 10% I enjoy a better console and alternate between loving and hating Linux packaging.)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem is that Ubuntu is shipping a modified version of Firefox instead of the default Firefox shipped by Mozilla.
No it's not. Patches and plugins are fine if they make a positive impact or at least do not make a negative impact and are easily removed. Negative features such as this are not very tolerable regardless of how easy it is to remove.
They don't want the named changed to Shiretoko or IceWeasel.
Shiretoko is Mozilla's own codename for Firefox 3.5. You don't get accuse Slashdot (and every other Linux-topic webpage on the Internet) of changing Ubuntu 9.04's name to "Jaunty", do you?
Some do prefer the name change. When I use Ubuntu I install abrowser, which strips out Mozil
the real problem here... (Score:3, Informative)
... is people not really paying attention to the facts.
* This has been repeatedly stated to be an experiment in an alpha (i.e. testing only) release
* Revenue gathering from the choice of search engine is nothing new (it's the main way Firefox generates revenue for Mozilla Corp)
* The data gathered is which of the search boxes you use (the default firefox UI lets you search from the search bar, in the URL bar and the default homepage).
So basically this seems to be an experiment to figure out which of the search methods people are using most.
(disclaimer: I work for Canonical as a sysadmin. I'm not a developer and I don't work on Ubuntu directly, so I was not in any way involved in the planning/implementation of this, and I speak here only for myself as an Ubuntu user who's dismayed at the anger people are unbottling with little information)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:some people... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)