unity-design team mailing list archive
Mailing list archive
Re: Apps available for download suggestions should be kept for searches.
On 25. feb. 2012 17:14, Carl Ansell wrote:
I suppose this is with regards the discussion about the PornView
application, which of course, has absolutely nothing to do with
pornography at all. It's quite simply an application to handle a
collection of pictures and videos. Just like libsexy isn't about sexy
librarians. We have lots of applications with humorous names. Consider
"gigolo". This is an application that handles mounting of file systems.
It got its name because it mounts anything. It has absolutely nothing to
do with male prostitution.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Unity-design] Apps available for download suggestions
should be kept for searches.
Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2012 16:14:22 +0000
From: Carl Ansell <afccarl1994@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Petko <pditchev@xxxxxxxxx>
On Fri 24 Feb 2012 14:20:56 GMT, Petko wrote:
> On 02/24/2012 08:16 AM, Omar B. wrote:
>> So the only way i would get a "porn" app is if i explicitly /
>> actively search for it, then i would find the recommendation useful
>> and probably install it (drag to launcher) or clicking it and read
>> more info in usc.
> That's the way Google searches work (no porn suggestions) , that's the
> way every multi-purpose search should work .
I've been against showing applications from the software center by
default since the beginning. But that's because it may feel like
advertising, and I'm worried it may create the impression that Ubuntu is
only free because the goal is to sell addons. I think that's at least a
valid point. However, if we should begin to hide everything that
someone, somewhere might find offensive, then we're walking a very
dangerous path. A lot of people consider poker to be deeply offensive,
for instance. Does that mean it should be removed from the Games
category so that these people can be protected from having to see the
word "poker" when they're looking for games? There's no limit to how far
we can take it.
But let's consider only names, since that's what the current issue is
about. Is it only English names that should be scanned for potentially
offensive connotations, or should it apply to all languages? I remember
a car named Honda Fitta. In nordic languages, «fitta» is vulgar slang
for the female genitalia. If something like that could slip through the
cracks of Hondas marketing department, how should Ubuntu be able to make
sure that no software in Ubuntu has any names that could possibly be
offensive to someone? In Norway, we also have several places called
"Hell". Does that mean I should not be allowed to make an application
and call it "The travelers guide to Hell"? Someone might misunderstand,
after all. And of course, American media had great fun with the beer
I agree with this. If a user knows what they are looking for, they will
search for it. If they want to see all the software that is available,
they will use the software centre. It will also prevent old and
pixelated icons appearing unneccesarily.
Yes, but what if you're just interested in finding some software for
managing your photos and videos? That would return the PornView
application, which is quite appropriate, but would still be offensive to
some people. As I stated earlier, I don't think the applications lens
should display software from the software center by default at all. But
that doesn't have anything to do with what's permissible and what's
offensive. Because that would be extremely difficult to accomplish, even
if it was something we would like to do -- which it should never, ever