New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Ubuntu Users Will Experience Amazon Ads on Local Network
Amazon shopping suggestions will be filtered into desktop search results for Ubuntu users and will be shown when users attempt to find documents on their computers and local network. This has occurred because Canonical, the company behind the distribution of GNU/Linux, finalized a deal with Amazon to suggest products worth purchasing. Links to these items will appear on the desktop during the next big release of Ubuntu, presumably version 12.10. In return for the ads, Canonical will take a cut on any purchases made through the links.
Source : http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/24/ubuntu_amazon_suggestions/
More info available on google 
Comments
This sucks. I hate ubuntu anyway.
That's cool. No matter how you feel about it, Ubuntu has done wonders for the advancement of desktop linux. Whether directly or indirectly, they have made an impact and continue to do so. They deserve to make money for their work as food, clothing, transportation, and permanent shelter are not free. Sure it is all open source, mostly made by other people, but to ignore that there are dedicated individuals behind Ubuntu who work hard would be a mistake. There is still much to do to create a solid distro beyond coding the pieces.
I already buy from Amazon every now and then, and I'll support both in this move. Ubuntu is not something you are entitled to, you're free to create your own flavor or use someone else's.
I don't see a problem in this. Like @jarland said, while being OpenSource, it has to be paid for in some way or the other. At least the servers need to be.
Lot's of people complain about their privacy, but I feel that's just one of the default excuses/complaints people raise in these kind of scenarios.
While I'm not against them monetizing Ubuntu, this feature should rather be opt-in than opt-out.
You mean, like, by offering a paid 'cloud storage' service? Or by offering commercial support? Or by accepting donations? Or by letting other people do the work?
Advertisements in an OS are completely ridiculous. Does everything need to be 'brought to you by' some sponsor? Fuck that.
OEM ads Linux style eh
Then don't use it. Simple solution.
Ubuntu offer premium services to make income. End users should not be responsible if Ubuntu can not make sales.
TO CANONICAL: Remember Windows 98 and that damn Active Channel bar or whatever it was called? Yeah.
How much did you pay for Ubuntu again? End users can decide for themselves to stay or go, Ubuntu will adjust accordingly.
Are you old enough to remember Windows 98?
I don't use ubuntu anyway. I have paid for win7 and more than happy with it.
Had a Win98 PC until 2002.
Fan stopped working so we upgraded to XP and got a .... ugh, Dell.
I don't use Ubuntu. Does that bar me from making a remark on their ridiculous decisions?
Just removes any relevance from it, just becomes complaining for the sake of complaining
Does Ubuntu offer an advert-free service for a donation/price? Like many mobile apps do.
Complaining for the sake of complaining? I don't think you have any idea of my views on these kinds of things and why I hold those views...
If you have to pay a fixed or minimum price for a particular 'reward', it's not a donation, even if some like to call it one. The point of a donation is for it to be fully voluntary, typically for already rendered services.
Doesn't matter. It's a package of free things that you can compile all by yourself at no cost. You don't use it, therefore it has no impact on you. Your "views" matter about as much as how you feel about pancakes...if you never eat them.
I am affected by the advertising as a whole (negatively, I may add) and consider it a problem that others are too. Does that not qualify me to criticize another ridiculous advertisement implementation, even if I don't use the particular channel that is used for them? The issue of advertising is getting worse regardless, so how is this not relevant to what I am involved in?
This should be good. Mind if I make myself a sandwich and get comfortable before you start explaining that one?
You are aware that Ubuntu is owned & supported by Mark Shuttleworth, the richest African person and one of the richest persons of the world right?
Not that big into reading such things to be honest
Still has my support. A nice bank account doesn't mean everything you put out has to be charity. Those who are really bothered by it will have it removed in minutes.
So @jarland, what in your mind would constitute legitimate complaint? If you don't like it, don't use it, but if you don't use it, you can't legitimately criticize it. The logical conclusion of your argument should be that in order to legitimately complain about it, people should use it, but they should like it while they're complaining about it, otherwise they should stop using it, and then... gah.
Well Ubuntu (the name/project) is owned by a company and as such expected to generate revenue. They can do whatever they want with it.
You missed one thing. Those who use it and are upset by this enough to stop using it will, if large in number, render the ads ineffective and ultimately be lobbying for it's removal. Those who do not and will not use Ubuntu either way have nothing to gain or lose from this but just like hearing themselves talk.
I wonder if Microsoft offered Windows 7 for free with built in ads and all you had to do was turn them off after you installed it, just how many people would jump at that opportunity instead of paying for a legitimate license?
derp, LET borked and doubleposted, see below
Okay. Advertising is a form of communication for marketing and used to encourage or persuade an audience (viewers, readers or listeners; sometimes a specific group) to continue or take some new action. From this it's already very clear what the main goal of advertising is: persuasion. Persuasion is a form of manipulation. The goal of advertising is to sell things that would otherwise not be sold (if it wasn't, then why is money spent on advertising?). Logical conclusion is that advertising is intended to manipulate people to buy things they would otherwise not buy.
People buy things themselves out of a need or strong desire. If advertising is required to make them buy something, that means the need or strong desire was apparently not there, meaning there was no real reason to spend money on the product to start with.
Advertising is so widespread and socially accepted that, not only does it have an immediate negative effect (on the funds of the buyer), it also has a very large social impact in the sense that it essentially glorifies 'consumerism', which in itself results in a lot of unnecessary waste, artificial inflation of claims or entire companies, and generally everything that would otherwise be considered morally unacceptable, all for the sake of selling as much as possible - all of which affects basically every living person on this planet, including me; thereby making this relevant to me.
Advertising essentially changes the mindset of people into one where the world is separated into brands and products. Take a look at the average life of the average person and try denying that.
That is how advertising negatively affects people, and that is why I take issue with it.
I am almost sure that someone will start to point out how I'm "exaggerating" this, and how I am blowing up the whole story. The problem is, I'm not. One of the characteristics of advertising is that it has to be subtle. If you start disliking advertising or the advertised products or services, that indicates a failure with regards to the ultimate goal of advertising. The result of this is that advertising is inherently designed to minimize friction, and make it socially acceptable. Combining that with the concept of cognitive dissonance, you will end up with a situation where a large amount of people will be vehemently defending the concept of advertising and trivializing its impact or even importance - despite the fact that advertising has never ever done anything positive for most of them, and has most likely only affected them negatively.
Usually there will also be people that claim advertising does not play such an important role in society. If that is really true, then explain how advertising is one of the biggest industries there is, and how it can fund the biggest of projects, continue to attract investors, and generally pay for projects with a giant budget. If advertising really were that unimportant, none of that would be possible.
I strongly doubt it. People will not easily dismiss a distribution that they have always claimed to love, and most likely pitched to family and friends quite enthusiastically - psychologically speaking, it would be an admission of bad judgment.
Incorrect. Advertisement can be meant to get yourself an audience. How the audience reacts is up to them, but people cannot buy a product that they do not know exists. You cannot provide figures for which intent represents the majority of advertising.
You have a seriously warped view of markets that excludes many realities in exchange for fantasies, but I'll discuss them with you right about the time hell freezes over. Not enough time in the world to discuss that with someone as "passionate" as yourself. Thanks for taking the time to share though.
Then they aren't concerned by it enough. If they were, they'd make the change. If the majority do not, the minority will do what they usually do on the internet: Complain endlessly that people don't agree with them.
This kind of sucks. Hopefully there will be an opt-out feature like there is for the Kindle tablets.
Due to the open source nature, I'm sure it will easily be patched our and/or disabled