It's a collaborative real-time editor for documents (in the broadest sense of the word).

Canonical would still need to build a user interface on top of the server component, so while it is a good idea there would still be quite a bit of work for Canonical to do as Google has not and most likely will not open source their own Wave implementation. Then again, let's not forgot that Google Wave in the current state is completely unusable for both communication (chat, discussion etc.) and any form of collaboration (specifically collaboration on documents). EtherPad on the other hand actually nails it regarding document collaboration.

So integrating EtherPad support into Ubuntu One would be feasible in the short term, at least to allow users to work together on Notes. It would be double as awesome if there was an effort to integrate support for libinfinity (from Gobby) in Tomboy (which already synchronizes with Ubuntu One). Then for collaboration over the web you'd use Ubuntu One's EtherPad functionality and in your desktop you can easily collaborate from within Tomboy.

It is true that at the moment there is indeed a "need" for proprietary software in quite a few areas. However, only in a sense that there is either no free/libre alternative, the alternatives are of lesser quality (where quality is obviously subjective) or (and this is quite often the case) the consumer has becomed locked-in.

However, there is no inherent need for software to be proprietary, the only reason that proprietary software still exists is because the producers (read: software companies) are in a lot of cases satisfied with the status-quo (a proven business model, at least in the sense of making money) and the consumers are not aware there is a better alternative (which would, among other things, lead to higher quality software).

Outside of the IT-industry, where Open Source has essentially already won (it's just that not everybody realizes it yet), this is still very obvious. It's in those areas where vendor lock-in is still the name of the game.

However, as soon as new innovative business models are popularized across the board, in which the advantages of Open Source development outweigh the advantages of keeping your software behind lock and chain, it'll be the end of proprietary software. This process will accelerate once consumers become aware of the advantages (for them) of Open Source development.

Let me see if I get this right. You're trying to use your inability to figure out how to make a living through other means than developing proprietary software as an example that "free software just doesn't work"?

You're so wrong it's not even funny. I advise you to read Stallman's essay Why “Free Software” is better than “Open Source”. Here's a quote from the essay that gets to the essence of what we're talking about here:

The fundamental difference between the two movements is in their values, their ways of looking at the world. For the Open Source movement, the issue of whether software should be open source is a practical question, not an ethical one. As one person put it, “Open source is a development methodology; free software is a social movement.” For the Open Source movement, non-free software is a suboptimal solution. For the Free Software movement, non-free software is a social problem and free software is the solution.

As I understand it to Stallman the primary goal of Free Software is not "better software" in terms of say stability, usability etc., it's "better" in the sense that it's the most ethical.

P.S.

I'd like to point out that I personally don't think Stallman is entirely correct in his description of the Open Source movement, as the goal of Open Source has always been the same as Free Software (among other things see Bruce Peren's "It's Time to Talk About Free Software Again"). However, regretfully the term Open Source has in a lot of cases, as evidenced from this entire discussion, become diluted.

Ignoring for a moment whether or not rights are subjective.

Earlier on you awkwardly defined rights as "things that it is wrong for the government to interfere with its citizens doing". Rights are much better defined as entitlements or permissions granted by agreement.

As another poster pointed out this is an issue about freedom of speech versus the right to privacy.

In this case you clearly seem to value freedom of speech over the right of privacy. However, that doesn't make it right (no pun intended) for you to say that the original poster doesn't "understand what a right is".

Yes, they are.

Nothing you just said counters the statement that "rights are highly subjective".

It's you who doesn't seem to understand that rights are highly subjective.

Right Mister investigative journalist, how do you disprove the following:

• Go to http://uk.asus.com/news_show.aspx?id=15908
• On the left side there's an advertisement for the Eee pc which links to http://www.asus-uk.com/eeepc/about/

Ok so by your own admittance we've proven that asus-uk.com at the very least is in fact an official Asus website. Right now let's take it one step further, here's a link to another page on that same domain:

• http://www.asus-uk.com/eeepc/1008HA/

Still asus-uk.com right? Read the page and see that it states: "It's better with Windows®" and links to http://www.itsbetterwithwindows.com/

I'd like to hear how you're going to wiggle your way out of this one. Oh it was just the UK branch, you say? Oh, it was just a lone mad sales guy? Asus was never serious about putting Linux on their netbooks, laptops or whatever from the get go. If you've ever used an Eee pc you'd know that the custom Xandros distro stuff was a disaster and anyone worth their salt would immediately replace it a properly configured distro (in a lot of cases Ubuntu). Asus well never get any money from me again.

Your entire post did nothing to counter the statement made by the GP that Firefox users are stingy or even elaborate as to how you yourself could not be called stingy. Judging by some of the other posts you've made you certainly sound stingy to me.

It doesn't really have anything to do with a conspiracy. I know some people will immediately go in a frenzy for me even recommending this but if you haven't consider reading some of Chomsky's political stuff such as Manufacturing Consent or Media Control. Then to balance everything out take a look at the criticism section from Wikipedia's article on Chomsky. But most important of all, stay critical and form your own opinion.

They're not? Correct me if I'm wrong but if there's a keylogger on your system your private key has already been compromised and all that the attacker needs is the passphrase. It may even be possible to simply do stuff behind the users back while the passphrase is cached.

Same reason I'm not sure if your idea about introducing another machine or VM and then remoting into that makes sense. A dedicated machine would help but you'd actually need to have a KVM switch.

Exactly, the confusion here might be in the terminology. Password versus passhrase.

Anyways, just using keys doesn't magically make everything more secure, it just negates brute force password attacks. From the few high profile cases I remember the compromise was the result of somebody's private key being compromised (e.g. the Debian compromises).

The only true solution is a combination of the principle of least privilege, sandboxing (SELinux etc.), proper monitoring and a whole host of other security measures.