On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 4:28 PM, C de-Avillez hgg...@ubuntu.com wrote:
On 05/11/12 09:08, Jordon Bedwell wrote:
This is from my perspective though
and I have not really followed all too closely since I am the type of
person to remove what I don't want and block stuff like Canonical's
NTP
On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 03:28:44PM +, J Fernyhough wrote:
I'm currently looking into how Ubuntu meets the provisions of the Data
Protection Act 1998, and more crucially what would need to be done to
meet the requirements, so that I have some base of evidence and legal
reasoning to put
On 5 November 2012 15:35, Martin Albisetti be...@ubuntu.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 12:28 PM, J Fernyhough j.fernyho...@gmail.com wrote:
(As an aside, it appears that being only enthusiastic
about Ubuntu and all decisions, or at least getting in line, is a
requisite for employment
On 7 November 2012 15:23, Colin Watson cjwat...@ubuntu.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 03:28:44PM +, J Fernyhough wrote:
I'm currently looking into how Ubuntu meets the provisions of the Data
Protection Act 1998, and more crucially what would need to be done to
meet the requirements, so
Le 07/11/2012 17:16, J Fernyhough a écrit :
On 7 November 2012 15:23, Colin Watson cjwat...@ubuntu.com wrote:
On Mon, Nov 05, 2012 at 03:28:44PM +, J Fernyhough wrote:
I'm currently looking into how Ubuntu meets the provisions of the Data
Protection Act 1998, and more crucially what would
On 05/11/12 09:08, Jordon Bedwell wrote:
This is from my perspective though
and I have not really followed all too closely since I am the type of
person to remove what I don't want and block stuff like Canonical's
NTP and other tracking via our hardware firewalls instead of
complaining about
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 09:45:59AM -0300, German Larrain M. wrote:
Well, issues like this
are the ones that motivate a fork (e.g. OpenOffice and LibreOffice) at one
time or another. Is it necessary to reach that point? I don't think so. It
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 8:55 AM, Robie Basak robie.ba...@canonical.com wrote:
Forks happen when people disagree. Is there really any disagreement
here? Have any privacy-related patches actually been rejected, or is it
just that nobody has written them?
Patches being rejected are a bit narrow,
On 5 November 2012 15:08, Jordon Bedwell jor...@envygeeks.com wrote:
-- snip --
I think what Canonical and Ubuntu are doing is alienating old Linux
users who are used to telling their computers what to do, not having
their computer tell them what they are going to do and then them
having to
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 12:28 PM, J Fernyhough j.fernyho...@gmail.com wrote:
(As an aside, it appears that being only enthusiastic
about Ubuntu and all decisions, or at least getting in line, is a
requisite for employment there.)
It is not.
--
Martin
--
Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
On 05/11/12 15:08, Jordon Bedwell wrote:
We've just had the Ubuntu Developer Summit during which the next release
was planned, and everyone was welcome (both in person and online). I
must have missed the session on privacy, or did nobody propose one?
I don't think there was one, I think this
On Nov 5, 2012 7:53 AM, Bruno Girin brunogi...@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/11/12 15:08, Jordon Bedwell wrote:
We've just had the Ubuntu Developer Summit during which the next
release
was planned, and everyone was welcome (both in person and online). I
must have missed the session on privacy, or
On Mon, 2012-11-05 at 15:52 +, Bruno Girin wrote:
It's a couple of weeks late for UDS-R but what about creating a
blueprint for UDS-S? Get the discussion going, gather examples of
privacy issues and what could be done to address them. Then at the next
UDS, we can work out solutions that
On Monday, November 05, 2012 11:53:03 AM Rodney Dawes wrote:
...
There were large changes to address some specific user concerns around
the dash search, that went in after various freezes were in effect.
...
That's also true of the shopping bits of dash search itself, so without time
travel,
On 5 November 2012 11:53, Rodney Dawes rodney.da...@canonical.com wrote:
There were large changes to address some specific user concerns around
the dash search, that went in *after* various freezes were in effect.
One example is http://pad.lv/1065652 which while obviously a user
interface
On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Jeremy Bicha jer...@bicha.net wrote:
One example is http://pad.lv/1065652 which while obviously a user
interface change, happened after Final Freeze without the typical
paperwork; presumably because it was *that* critical to mitigate the
privacy concerns.
I
Le 05/11/2012 18:14, Jeremy Bicha a écrit :
On 5 November 2012 11:53, Rodney Dawes rodney.da...@canonical.com wrote:
There were large changes to address some specific user concerns around
the dash search, that went in *after* various freezes were in effect.
One example is http://pad.lv/1065652
On Mon, 2012-11-05 at 12:11 -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Monday, November 05, 2012 11:53:03 AM Rodney Dawes wrote:
...
There were large changes to address some specific user concerns around
the dash search, that went in after various freezes were in effect.
...
That's also true of the
On 11/05/2012 11:32 AM, Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
On Nov 5, 2012 7:53 AM, Bruno Girin brunogi...@gmail.com
Or is it the case that nobody bothered to file a blueprint? Bear in mind
that *anybody* in the community can create blueprints for UDS, not just
Canonical.
Anyone can create one but
On 5 November 2012 13:19, Rodney Dawes rodney.da...@canonical.com wrote:
I don't know if it's been done before or not, but perhaps the Release
Team, and Tech Board, should take up any concerns related to some of the
Canonical projects' involvement in that process, with the appropriate
members
On Monday, November 05, 2012 12:14:51 PM Jeremy Bicha wrote:
On 5 November 2012 11:53, Rodney Dawes rodney.da...@canonical.com wrote:
There were large changes to address some specific user concerns around
the dash search, that went in *after* various freezes were in effect.
One example is
On Monday, November 05, 2012 08:32:35 AM Benjamin Kerensa wrote:
Or is it the case that nobody bothered to file a blueprint? Bear in mind
that anybody in the community can create blueprints for UDS, not just
Canonical.
Anyone can create one but Canonical does approve them.
There are a
On Monday, November 05, 2012 01:19:51 PM Rodney Dawes wrote:
On Mon, 2012-11-05 at 12:11 -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
On Monday, November 05, 2012 11:53:03 AM Rodney Dawes wrote:
...
There were large changes to address some specific user concerns around
the dash search, that went in
On Mon, 2012-11-05 at 13:58 -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
I don't know if it's been done before or not, but perhaps the Release
Team, and Tech Board, should take up any concerns related to some of the
Canonical projects' involvement in that process, with the appropriate
members of
On Monday, November 05, 2012 02:27:06 PM Rodney Dawes wrote:
On Mon, 2012-11-05 at 13:58 -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote:
I don't know if it's been done before or not, but perhaps the Release
Team, and Tech Board, should take up any concerns related to some of the
Canonical projects'
with anti-OSS people.
Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2012 00:03:13 -0400
From: nick rundy nru...@hotmail.com
To: ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com
Subject: EFF Privacy; hopefully Ubuntu will listen to users?
Message-ID: bay002-w3239077a170718e5b5745dd5
26 matches
Mail list logo
