I guess the same goes for most popular distributions.

Anyway that's not the point. The system is not only an interface. There are a lot of components that must be selected properly to work together best. Many of these other components are part of the Ubuntu-based distributions too. So if your distribution is based on Ubuntu or uses its repositories, in part you should be grateful to Ubuntu and Debian. Otherwise if you are responsible for a distribution and do not want to give credit to Canonical, then do not make your distribution based on Ubuntu and follow an independent way.

Actually, the evil part of Ubuntu is Canonical's spyware & adware, which is now included in the default install. I guess you can try to disable it (recent "bug" still sent data after if was supposedly disabled) but I can't support a ANY distro that engages in this kind of behavior.



One of the reasons I abandoned Windows (and there are many) was precisely this kind of snooping, calling home and data mining. The fact that Linux distros are now engaging in this kind of activity is very disturbing. That's my opinion but I'm sure some people could care less.

Ethically, I think a distribution based on Ubuntu and which do not agree with the privacy policies (or any other thing) of Canonical, should not be based anymore on Ubuntu.
Otherwise, you say you do not agree with the devil, but you keep using it.
I'm not defending Ubuntu, but that was the point I wanted to emphasize in the post where I write about the "evil Ubuntu"

Why? It's not like Ubuntu or Canonical benefits anything from other distros using their packages or repositories. Ubuntu is largely based on Debian anyway, nothing they have is original, apart from Unity and Upstart (and soon Mir).

If I make a distro that uses all the same packages as Ubuntu, is it then based on Ubuntu, even if I get the packages from elsewhere? It's kind of a ship of Theseus kind of thing...

Not to mention that the code they use in their "smartscopes" server which gives the search results for the dash searches is proprietary, as in: closed source. As is the UbuntuOne server software (their excuse: "we have to keep it closed or we'll lose competitive advantage"... now where have I heard that one before?) So much for open source ideals...

If it's so simple to maintain a distribution, then why do they choose to remain based on Ubuntu (or using their repositories)? Make it based directly on Debian or any other if you do not agree with Canonical.
It is true that Ubuntu uses Debian packages (I had said before that if a distro is based on Ubuntu should be grateful to Debian too). But Ubuntu also maintains its own packages and their own patches. Maintain a distro is not as simple as you seem to imply.

Maybe because it's simply easier to use Ubuntu as a base than replicate all that work? It's a good thing to not waste effort on things that have already been done, no matter if you disagree with other things the people who have done it have done.

Do you also think it's unethical to use ReiserFS? It's lead developer was convicted of murder, so according to your logic, if you disagree with murder, you shouldn't use a filesystem developed by a murderer.

That kind of logic would work in the proprietary world, where using a software creates a direct benefit to the developer of said software, but it's a lot fuzzier in open source.

No no, that's not my logic. I think it's you who are using a misleading and extreme logic.

Canonical develops Unity, Amazon lens and Mir in order to continue developing Ubuntu. Paradox: The Ubuntu-based distributions need that Canonical continue developing Unity, Amazon lens and Mir (the things they criticize) to continue existing.

Reiser does not kill people in order to develop (or continue developing) ReiserFS. Distributions using ReiserFS do not need that Reiser continue killing people to continue existing.

And sorry I did not continue with the discussion, I find it very difficult to express exactly what I want with my poor English.

What? How do you figure that? None of the Ubuntu-based distributions use Unity, Amazon lens or (plan to use) Mir. They don't need those things. Besides, many of them would continue existing even if Ubuntu died, at least Mint has contingency plans in case Ubuntu stops existing. Mint already has a Debian-based edition, and many others would probably rebase themselves on either Debian, Mint or some other distro.



Right. It's the same thing.