I'm sure many of us use browser based adblocking extensions, and I go the extra step and use Pi-Hole on a Raspberry Pi at home for DNS level blocking.
I do it because I don't like advertisements (I don't care much if they are how content is "monetized"); I do pay for/donate to companies or individuals that provide me useful software. Many people justify adblocking by saying they'd be fine with non-invasive ads and tracking type ads that can be privacy violating, but I think the case is that they're mostly like me...they would rather just not see ads.
So I see your point somewhat, as I'm currently running Ubuntu myself. I would not want to see that content in my terminal, personally. Though, rather than ask Canonical (likely in vain) to address this issue, I just don't have MOTD on at all.
I guess what I'm saying is the solution is pretty simple: just disable it and move on. On a lighter note, I'm not sure what kind of clickthrough they'd anticipate on a headless server. Gonna follow that link with lynx?
The issue isn't that it can be disabled, but I wasn't asked to allow it on my OS. Websites are different, in the sense, I really don't care. My OS install is where I do care. I can disable it, but I shouldn't have to do that in the first place.
I would definitely agree that a person shouldn't have to do it. Stripped down to the simplest of terms it's opt-in versus opt-out. Your reply makes me think: I introduced the website scenario, and I'm realizing now it's a false dichotomy.
The in-practice implemention of things ends up different than either of us would like I think. If I visit a website that uses invasive advertisements or something similar, I really didn't know that until I got there. The reality with a website is I never had the chance to opt out (aside from closing the browser after the fact), but I wouldn't have had that info that prior to visiting it. With an OS install, I'm willing to admit I probably clicked "I Agree" on something too onerous to read and agreed to... something, as it were.
I not really disagreeing on the principles. I don't think there's an issue with addressing Canonical's decision in this manner, and free and open source communities wouldn't exist if people had simply let the status quo reign. The reality is that turning MOTD off produces the desired result as well, and people do tend to take the path of least resistance (otherwise, we'd all be running Arch, right?)
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
I'm sure many of us use browser based adblocking extensions, and I go the extra step and use Pi-Hole on a Raspberry Pi at home for DNS level blocking.
I do it because I don't like advertisements (I don't care much if they are how content is "monetized"); I do pay for/donate to companies or individuals that provide me useful software. Many people justify adblocking by saying they'd be fine with non-invasive ads and tracking type ads that can be privacy violating, but I think the case is that they're mostly like me...they would rather just not see ads.
So I see your point somewhat, as I'm currently running Ubuntu myself. I would not want to see that content in my terminal, personally. Though, rather than ask Canonical (likely in vain) to address this issue, I just don't have MOTD on at all.
I guess what I'm saying is the solution is pretty simple: just disable it and move on. On a lighter note, I'm not sure what kind of clickthrough they'd anticipate on a headless server. Gonna follow that link with lynx?
The issue isn't that it can be disabled, but I wasn't asked to allow it on my OS. Websites are different, in the sense, I really don't care. My OS install is where I do care. I can disable it, but I shouldn't have to do that in the first place.
I would definitely agree that a person shouldn't have to do it. Stripped down to the simplest of terms it's opt-in versus opt-out. Your reply makes me think: I introduced the website scenario, and I'm realizing now it's a false dichotomy.
The in-practice implemention of things ends up different than either of us would like I think. If I visit a website that uses invasive advertisements or something similar, I really didn't know that until I got there. The reality with a website is I never had the chance to opt out (aside from closing the browser after the fact), but I wouldn't have had that info that prior to visiting it. With an OS install, I'm willing to admit I probably clicked "I Agree" on something too onerous to read and agreed to... something, as it were.
I not really disagreeing on the principles. I don't think there's an issue with addressing Canonical's decision in this manner, and free and open source communities wouldn't exist if people had simply let the status quo reign. The reality is that turning MOTD off produces the desired result as well, and people do tend to take the path of least resistance (otherwise, we'd all be running Arch, right?)