Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 27th Jan 2010 15:14 UTC, submitted by historyb
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu For the longest time, the default search provider in Ubuntu Linux has been Google, but this is going to change in the next release, Lucid Lynx, scheduled to release April 29. The change comes after Canonical has signed a revenue sharing deal with Yahoo!, so you can imagine who the new default search provider will be.
Order by: Score:
Chrome
by Cody Evans on Wed 27th Jan 2010 15:28 UTC
Cody Evans
Member since:
2009-08-14

Posting this from Chrome on Ubuntu, this doesn't effect me either.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Chrome
by boblowski on Wed 27th Jan 2010 16:25 UTC in reply to "Chrome"
boblowski Member since:
2007-07-23

There's a lot of talk about Chrome in tech oriented user forums. Probably I'm simply getting too old (afraid so :-) ), but as an Opera and occasional Firefox user I have some trouble seeing the specialness of Chrome. I mean, I tried it, it looks nice, but to me as a more or less normal user it just looks like, well, like a browser. Just like IE and Safari are browsers as well.

What's the part this poor fellow doesn't understand? What sets Chrome apart from the rest of the bunch?

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Chrome
by jgagnon on Thu 28th Jan 2010 16:45 UTC in reply to "RE: Chrome"
jgagnon Member since:
2008-06-24

I'm a long-time Firefox user and still love that browser, though much of my love for it is with the plug-ins and customizations. Now that Chrome has has the capability to add just about all of the plug-ins I've been using in Firefox, I've found myself giving it a shot.

It does use a LOT more memory than Firefox, though that is not really much of an issue for me because every computer I use regularly has at least 2 GB of RAM (8GB on my main box). As for what makes Chrome "better", I'm still figuring that out. All I know is that I continue to find no reason to ever use IE on Windows.

Edited 2010-01-28 16:46 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: Chrome
by JeffS on Wed 27th Jan 2010 17:11 UTC in reply to "Chrome"
JeffS Member since:
2005-07-12

Chrome looks like it's going to be a bad choice for Ubuntu, since they are going to have the video tag in HTML 5 use the h.264 codec, which costs $5,000,000 a year to distribute, and Google's licensing does not extend to downstream third parties (read: Ubuntu and other distros).

Give Firefox another chance - it has improved immensely with the 3.6 release.

Personally, after using Chrome and Safari a lot over the last year or so, I've switched back to Firefox due to it's great speed, and lessened memory usage, improvements.

As for Ubuntu defaulting to Yahoo search - seems natural to go with that, since there is revenue sharing, and the h.264 issue (that Google is supporting).

Plus, Yahoo is getting it's act together again. They've just announced improved quarterly results. Carol Bartz seems to have her act together as a CEO.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Chrome
by siimo on Wed 27th Jan 2010 21:46 UTC in reply to "RE: Chrome"
siimo Member since:
2006-06-22

Ever hear of Chromium? The FOSS project that is essentially Chrome? It contains the ogg codec only and is free to use and it is probably what most distros will ship.

Google Chrome is just a "distro" of chromimum with official google branding and extras like h.264.

Reply Score: 2

Not on chrome you imply?
by vaette on Wed 27th Jan 2010 15:37 UTC
vaette
Member since:
2008-08-09

Eh? Why wouldn't they change their Chrome package to match your search provider settings? That just seems odd.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Not on chrome you imply?
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 27th Jan 2010 15:39 UTC in reply to "Not on chrome you imply?"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Chrome isn't distributed as part of Ubuntu. You get it via Google, and it's updated via Google's repository.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Not on chrome you imply?
by dagw on Wed 27th Jan 2010 15:47 UTC in reply to "RE: Not on chrome you imply?"
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

I think you're forgetting the word "yet" somewhere there. Once Chrome stabilizes a bit more, why wouldn't it be pulled into the standard Ubuntu repo? And once that happens why wouldn't they set Yahoo as default?

Reply Score: 2

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

I think you're forgetting the word "yet" somewhere there. Once Chrome stabilizes a bit more, why wouldn't it be pulled into the standard Ubuntu repo? And once that happens why wouldn't they set Yahoo as default?


Because Chrome can't be included in Ubuntu's repositories, not even the partner ones, due to the h264 license. Only Google may distribute it.

Reply Score: 7

RE[4]: Not on chrome you imply?
by GatoLoko on Wed 27th Jan 2010 17:38 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Not on chrome you imply?"
GatoLoko Member since:
2005-11-13

But they can include Chromium, the open source part of Chrome, and choose whether they want to compile it with h264 support or not. There is even a PPA repository with daily snapshots where the codecs are optional (free or nonfree).

https://launchpad.net/~chromium-daily/+archive/ppa

Edit: fixed a typo

Edited 2010-01-27 17:39 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Not on chrome you imply?
by WereCatf on Wed 27th Jan 2010 17:49 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Not on chrome you imply?"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

But they can include Chromium, the open source part of Chrome, and choose whether they want to compile it with h264 support or not. There is even a PPA repository with daily snapshots where the codecs are optional (free or nonfree).

It's still illegal to use Chromium with h.264 support built-in if you live in the US or any country where software patents are allowed.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Not on chrome you imply?
by boldingd on Thu 28th Jan 2010 17:03 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Not on chrome you imply?"
boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

Wouldn't the same be true of ffmpeg and VLC, and aren't both available from Apt on a fresh install? Making software available that is technically illegal is nothing new at all to Linux distributors. (Heh, Patrick Volkerding's never even cared at all, so far as I can tell.)

Reply Score: 2

Does not affect me either
by spiderman on Wed 27th Jan 2010 15:38 UTC
spiderman
Member since:
2008-10-23

I don't use Ubuntu. I use the real thing instead: Debian and iceweasel.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Does not affect me either
by righard on Wed 27th Jan 2010 16:01 UTC in reply to "Does not affect me either"
righard Member since:
2007-12-26

The fact that Ubuntu is based on Debian does not make in less "real". Same as humands are not less real than apes.

Edited 2010-01-27 16:02 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Does not affect me either
by spiderman on Wed 27th Jan 2010 16:13 UTC in reply to "RE: Does not affect me either"
spiderman Member since:
2008-10-23

http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/debian
Ubuntu is not exactly a fork from debian. Ubuntu IS debian. And I'm not saying that in any negative way. They make very nice wallpapers and the icons are pretty. It's better that way. They would be very wrong to fork Debian indeed. I like Ubuntu actually, I think they do really interesting stuff, like the shipit program. I just don't use it, I use Debian instead.

Edited 2010-01-27 16:22 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Does not affect me either
by boldingd on Thu 28th Jan 2010 17:06 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Does not affect me either"
boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

It was my understanding that Ubuntu and Debian did not share repositories, and used a slightly different and incompatible .deb format (I learned that the hard way when I actually tried to install a .deb for Debian on an Ubuntu machine, stupidly, and broke apt). At that point, I think we can say that Ubuntu is a fork of Debian, by any reasonable definition of the term.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Does not affect me either
by irbis on Fri 29th Jan 2010 01:43 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Does not affect me either"
irbis Member since:
2005-07-08

It was my understanding that Ubuntu and Debian did not share repositories, and used a slightly different and incompatible .deb format

Ubuntu and Debian are binary-incompatible, so it is a bad idea to mix Ubuntu and Debian repositories in your /etc/apt/sources.list . But Ubuntu cannot be considered a fork. Ubuntu still compiles most of its non-basic software from Debian unstable source packages, and Ubuntu's basic software management is still very much based on Debian.

Despite binary-incompatibility, it is often safe to install some individual Debian package on Ubuntu, especially such simple deb packages like fonts, for example. However, there have been incompatibilities between Debian and Ubuntu in the default versions of some basic stuff (Python etc.), and nowadays the two use some different basic tools (init system etc.), so installing software that depends on different (versions of) basic things is dangerous. Just like it can be difficult to install a package meant for Ubuntu 9.10 on Ubuntu 8.04, for example.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Does not affect me either
by Savior on Thu 28th Jan 2010 09:12 UTC in reply to "Does not affect me either"
Savior Member since:
2006-09-02

I don't use Ubuntu. I use the real thing instead: Debian and iceweasel.


Maybe it's just me, but I find the words "real thing" and "Iceweasel" in the same sentence immensely funny.

Reply Score: 1

i don't care
by d.marcu on Wed 27th Jan 2010 15:45 UTC
d.marcu
Member since:
2009-12-27

i'll manually switch to google on the first run

Reply Score: 7

RE: i don't care
by KAMiKAZOW on Thu 28th Jan 2010 14:15 UTC in reply to "i don't care "
KAMiKAZOW Member since:
2005-07-06

Have you even tried Yahoo recently? Its search results are on par with Google these days. Since I found out about Forestle http://www.forestle.org , I use it exclusively. It uses Yahoo as back-end and I can't complain.

Reply Score: 2

v Perfect timing
by BallmerKnowsBest on Wed 27th Jan 2010 15:50 UTC
v RE: Perfect timing
by jyoungxxxx on Wed 27th Jan 2010 19:31 UTC in reply to "Perfect timing"
RE: Perfect timing
by ichi on Wed 27th Jan 2010 20:25 UTC in reply to "Perfect timing"
ichi Member since:
2007-03-06

A brilliant move by Ubuntu, especially the timing. At any other time, there would be dozens of knee-jerk, blindly anti-commerce posts from Freetards who can't stand to see anyone else's success.

But Ubuntu can get away with it at the moment, thanks to Google becoming the "new Microsoft" in the minds of many basement-dwellers. Apparently because Google had the gall to make money using Linux, without turning themselves into a non-profit that devotes all of their resources to pushing the FSF agenda. And now they must be punished!


You realize Canonical is a for-profit organization just like Google, right? Kinda throws your argument out of the window, doesn't it?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Perfect timing
by BallmerKnowsBest on Thu 28th Jan 2010 01:18 UTC in reply to "RE: Perfect timing"
BallmerKnowsBest Member since:
2008-06-02

You realize Canonical is a for-profit organization just like Google, right? Kinda throws your argument out of the window, doesn't it?


Silly rabbit, you misunderstand the Freetard mentality. Canonical is a-okay only because they haven't committed the unforgivable sin of being financially-successful.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Perfect timing
by ichi on Thu 28th Jan 2010 20:08 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Perfect timing"
ichi Member since:
2007-03-06

It would be first news to me then that RedHat is not "OK".

Google being suddenly hated because they make profit out of Linux is a straw man.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Perfect timing
by Lanadapter on Thu 28th Jan 2010 17:42 UTC in reply to "Perfect timing"
Lanadapter Member since:
2009-10-01

Who the hell Are you talking about? Everyone I've encountered who claims the beliefs of the FSF or the OSI applaud companies/individuals that make money from open source.

Edited 2010-01-28 17:49 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE: Perfect timing
by lord_rob on Fri 29th Jan 2010 09:29 UTC in reply to "Perfect timing"
lord_rob Member since:
2005-08-06

Ever heard of the Summer of Code ?

If it's not helping open source projects I don't know what it is ...

Reply Score: 2

Comment by Heard
by Heard on Wed 27th Jan 2010 15:54 UTC
Heard
Member since:
2009-12-24

I already see many people criticizing that deal. It's not different from what google is doing, though. Keep in mind google is also paying to be the default search engine in Firefox and Opera and recently there were news about microsoft doing a similar deal with apple.
Which brings me to the next point. Is Canonical even allowed to change the default search engine in Firefox?

And seriously who except the 2 companys cares if the default is google or yahoo? It's still a matter of taste/choice.

Reply Score: 7

fasted
Member since:
2006-11-09

that will do. I don't get it, you sleep with Google to make a baby (Chrome OS), then jump in bed with Yahoo? It's all good till someone's feelings get hurt, then the stuff hits the fan. Is this really the way to raise revenues, I mean why not take Microsoft's "interoperability deal", with Novel? Their revenue went threw the roof! They, and SUSE, are swimming in fans. Even if it is "easily changed with a click or two", the default is what it is, will someone new figure it out. It's all based on appearance's , I know, but nobody cared what the reality was when the Microsoft deal went down.

Sigh, which comes out first, Chrome Os, or Lucid?

Edited 2010-01-27 15:57 UTC

Reply Score: 0

fasted Member since:
2006-11-09

Whoopsie, just received a reply from Rick Spencer, and I was dead wrong, as usual. Seems it's just the drop down box, been so long since I used Firefox :[
When you're wrong , promptly admit it. My bad. There's nothing to what I said about Google being miffed either, pure speculation on my part. Which is why he is where he is in life, and I'm living in my mom's basement, unemployed, drinking coffee, smoking cigarette's and watching Captain Kangaroo reruns....

Reply Score: 2

Bahh!
by CoolGoose on Wed 27th Jan 2010 15:56 UTC
CoolGoose
Member since:
2005-07-06

I can't believe that nobody gets it that it's not related to google chrome (the web browser) at all.

What they're trying to explain is that the start page for the search in Firefox in Ubuntu 10.04 will match the settings chosen by you in the search box from the top right.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Bahh!
by dylansmrjones on Wed 27th Jan 2010 16:07 UTC in reply to "Bahh!"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

We are perfectly aware of that.

The reason we are mentioning Google Chrome is because that browser isn't affected by the change in default search provider, and as such we don't give a damn about the change.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Bahh!
by CoolGoose on Wed 27th Jan 2010 18:42 UTC in reply to "RE: Bahh!"
CoolGoose Member since:
2005-07-06

Ha, nor Epiphany and many others.
Nor would it make sense to do it. It's just for the default browser dooh ;) .

Reply Score: 1

Comment by dylansmrjones
by dylansmrjones on Wed 27th Jan 2010 16:04 UTC
dylansmrjones
Member since:
2005-10-02

sudo apt-get remove firefox-3.5 is my favourite command anyway, preferably executed right after installing Chrome, so it bears no relevance on me. I know I'm a minority though, so how about all of you? How do you feel about this change?


I couldn't care less. It's easy to change, so no harm done. Besides that I'm using Google Chrome on Linux as well.

Google Chrome on Windows Server 2008, and Google Chrome on Ubuntu 9.10.

Reply Score: 1

couldn't resist
by whorider on Wed 27th Jan 2010 16:12 UTC
whorider
Member since:
2009-03-20

"Do you ubuntooo?"

Reply Score: 1

No impact
by chrisfriberg on Wed 27th Jan 2010 16:17 UTC
chrisfriberg
Member since:
2009-04-08

I doubt even Yahoo! care because they are now the default search engine on one distribution of a desktop OS with 1% market share. Also, if you are technically inclined enough to install Ubuntu I think you can handle changing a basic browser setting.

Reply Score: 1

RE: No impact
by ricegf on Wed 27th Jan 2010 17:22 UTC in reply to "No impact"
ricegf Member since:
2007-04-25

Well, 5% share according to Microsoft. But you know what a bunch of liars THEY are! :-D

Reply Score: 1

Have to ask
by darknexus on Wed 27th Jan 2010 16:25 UTC
darknexus
Member since:
2008-07-15

Does anyone even use Yahoo search these days? I just tried it again for laughs and it's more ad-ridden than Google and less accurate for most things. Yahoo was my search engine of choice... back in 1997 or so. First thing I'll be doing, you can bet, is switch my search engine away from yahoo back to Google. Hell, even Bing is better than Yahoo.

Reply Score: 6

RE: Have to ask
by hollovoid on Wed 27th Jan 2010 18:37 UTC in reply to "Have to ask"
hollovoid Member since:
2005-09-21

I agree, I try every new search engine when I see it, and revisit old ones when they pop up, and they always end up frustrating me back to google with ridiculously inaccurate results. Although, google's targeted by search ads do crack me up, I was searching for MSDS on Manganese Dioxide for someone at work, and it said on the sponsered ad...

"Get Manganese Dioxide cheaper at Walmart...
Save money, live better, walmart!"

:)

Reply Score: 3

RE: Have to ask
by Mellin on Thu 28th Jan 2010 11:42 UTC in reply to "Have to ask"
Mellin Member since:
2005-07-06

Yahoo is powered by Bing ;)

Reply Score: 2

how much 'revenue'?
by mckill on Wed 27th Jan 2010 16:27 UTC
mckill
Member since:
2007-06-12

Exactly how much revenue could come from this? I just don't see it being more than a few dollars/month.

Reply Score: 2

RE: how much 'revenue'?
by TheIdiotThatIsMe on Wed 27th Jan 2010 16:44 UTC in reply to "how much 'revenue'?"
TheIdiotThatIsMe Member since:
2006-06-17

Thats what I was wondering too. From my understanding it would only share in revenue actually generated through (my guess) ads clicked on in search results and various things like that. So considering that most people will probably simply change back to google, and/or use adblocking add-ons, or not use Firefox at all, I wonder why either party actually bothered. And of course we know we'll never actually be given even a glimpse of whether either makes any money or marketshare on this.

Reply Score: 1

heh)
by Luca on Wed 27th Jan 2010 16:44 UTC
Luca
Member since:
2009-03-11
remove firefox ?
by Yagami on Wed 27th Jan 2010 16:59 UTC
Yagami
Member since:
2006-07-15

after all that mozilla has done for the web development and free standards , upon requiring two mouse clicks you just remove it and run into chrome and its x"closed" video codec

nice ... really nice ...

Reply Score: 2

Yahoo
by Mellin on Wed 27th Jan 2010 17:01 UTC
Mellin
Member since:
2005-07-06

Yahoo is powered by Microsoft Bing

not going to use it.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Yahoo
by JeffS on Wed 27th Jan 2010 17:17 UTC in reply to "Yahoo"
JeffS Member since:
2005-07-12

Why?

Bing isn't bad. And there is no idealistic reason not to use Bing. I mean, this is a market where Microsoft has had it's ass kicked, and it's not like you're feeding into the monopoly.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Yahoo
by WereCatf on Wed 27th Jan 2010 17:46 UTC in reply to "RE: Yahoo"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Why?

Bing isn't bad.


I, personally, get much more accurate results with Google than with Bing, and as the whole point of them is to return results for your queries it's a pretty big issue. That's the primary reason I use Google. Secondary reasons are that I'm used to Google, and I try to avoid Microsoft when there are reasonable alternatives, though that's not such a big issue.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Yahoo
by Mellin on Wed 27th Jan 2010 18:06 UTC in reply to "RE: Yahoo"
Mellin Member since:
2005-07-06

Bing doesn't give me anything new and it isn't better than Google so why switch ?

Edited 2010-01-27 18:25 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Yahoo
by KAMiKAZOW on Thu 28th Jan 2010 14:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Yahoo"
KAMiKAZOW Member since:
2005-07-06

Bing doesn't give me anything new and it isn't better than Google so why switch ?

Better privacy policy, especially if used through Yahoo (MS is bound to Yahoo's privacy policy). Using Yahoo through Forestle http://www.forestle.org/ even saves the rain forest. Can't get this with Google.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: Yahoo
by Mellin on Thu 28th Jan 2010 23:36 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Yahoo"
Mellin Member since:
2005-07-06

but nothing new

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Yahoo
by UltraZelda64 on Wed 27th Jan 2010 21:29 UTC in reply to "RE: Yahoo"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

And there is no idealistic reason not to use Bing. I mean, this is a market where Microsoft has had it's ass kicked, and it's not like you're feeding into the monopoly.

Microsoft is Microsoft. Using/supporting Bing still helps to fuel them as a company. If Bing was in no way a Microsoft product and a completely separate company, then maybe what you said would be partially true.

Edited 2010-01-27 21:30 UTC

Reply Score: 1

Lame
by pooo on Wed 27th Jan 2010 17:30 UTC
pooo
Member since:
2006-04-22

I think the key thing to notice here is that Ubuntu is taking money to make a decision about the UI.

This is significant because previously all such decisions were about what was best for the user. Answer this, why didn't they change to Yahoo before?? Because everyone knows full well that google is a better search engine and what 99.9% of Ubuntu users prefer.

This isn't about being a freedom Nazi (which I actually am). It is about realizing that Ubuntu previously had a business model that entirely depended on user satisfaction and consequently there was no conflict of interest. Not anymore.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Lame
by Yagami on Wed 27th Jan 2010 18:05 UTC in reply to "Lame"
Yagami Member since:
2006-07-15

no , the key thing here is that although they change the default for "comercial reasons" , they do not hinder in any way your freedom to use whatever you want.

ubuntu is not obligated to sponsor google nor redhat

kde is not obligated to sponsor gnome

vim is not obligated to sponsor to emacs

if they made the google search slower or worse in any way compared to "default google search" , than that would be a problem for freedom.

freedom has nothing to do with "not making money" or "not market for your own things for money".

it has to do with hindering your "personal choice". and ubuntu has done nothing of that.

although i am defending ubuntu i, actually , am a gentoo and kde guy , so , ubuntu to me is the "worse" distro that can be ;)

Reply Score: 1

RE: Lame
by Gone fishing on Wed 27th Jan 2010 18:14 UTC in reply to "Lame"
Gone fishing Member since:
2006-02-22

Ubuntu changes its default search provider to make some money - yeah, where's the problem?

Canonical is a company that develops Ubuntu - it has a workforce they need paying etc this requires money.

I fail to see the problem we're geeks it will take 10 seconds to change the provider back to Google or a few more to install Chrome.

Further more if I can help Canonical by using Yahoo to click a few adds when I want to buy something I may well do.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Lame
by SlackerJack on Wed 27th Jan 2010 19:08 UTC in reply to "RE: Lame"
SlackerJack Member since:
2005-11-12

It's hardly good supporting a company such as Yahoo, who have very little or no FOSS contribution.

I think Canonical should think about FOSS and pick more wisely, rather than think about the money no matter who it is.

I see Canonical getting pain for this, just like Novell siding with Microsoft.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Lame
by lucas_maximus on Wed 27th Jan 2010 19:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Lame"
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Yahoo are big users of FreeBSD and contribute code and I believe cash back to the project .... yahoo do help FOSS software that they use.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Lame
by jyoungxxxx on Wed 27th Jan 2010 19:33 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Lame"
jyoungxxxx Member since:
2007-01-11

It is easy. They are being paid off. Follow the money, follow the money, it leads to all your answers! It doesn't matter what Ubuntu does though, The community will never be bought off.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Lame
by Slambert666 on Thu 28th Jan 2010 10:56 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Lame"
Slambert666 Member since:
2008-10-30

The community will never be bought off.


What community are you talking about?

The developers paid to work on linux by commercial companies?

http://www.osnews.com/story/22786/75_of_Linux_Code_Written_by_Paid_...

The users, using Google and/or Ubuntu?

These users has already been enslaved by the imperialistic multinational capital a long time ago.

You must either be talking about some "community" that I have never heard about or you are naive to the point of being ridiculous.
So what is it? please enlighten me....

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: Lame
by Heard on Thu 28th Jan 2010 10:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Lame"
Heard Member since:
2009-12-24

Yahoo is supporting Canonical and therefore FOSS here by paying money to them. Sure, they get something back. But isn't it in the spirit of the GPL to get something back? ;)

Reply Score: 2

RE: Lame
by rhyder on Wed 27th Jan 2010 23:29 UTC in reply to "Lame"
rhyder Member since:
2005-09-28

On balance, this decision will do something to help oppose the near monopoly that google has on search.

Reply Score: 3

RE: Lame
by dylansmrjones on Thu 28th Jan 2010 06:42 UTC in reply to "Lame"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

This isn't about being a freedom Nazi (which I actually am)


Oxymoron, anyone? Or am I just waaaaay behind in the never-ending linguistic evolution?

Reply Score: 2

Why is this a problem?
by intangible on Wed 27th Jan 2010 17:43 UTC
intangible
Member since:
2005-07-06

As long as they don't override user preferences, defaulting to Yahoo or even Bing doesn't particularly bother me...

Just wait for the Ubuntu spinoff distro that does nothing more than change the default search engine back, hahah.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Why is this a problem?
by jyoungxxxx on Wed 27th Jan 2010 19:30 UTC in reply to "Why is this a problem?"
jyoungxxxx Member since:
2007-01-11

Exactly right man! Ubuntu may be bought off but they won't pay me off.

Reply Score: 2

v So quality is not a priority anymore
by vtolkov on Wed 27th Jan 2010 21:28 UTC
KAMiKAZOW Member since:
2005-07-06

Ubuntu is a branch off Debian Unstable. It's a cutting edge distro. Has always been, even though to a lesser degree than Fedora.

That's not bad. Lots of people like that concept, but being cutting edge results in slightly lesser quality than some other distros as people who were in the past plagued with Intel GPU and PulseAudio problems can tell you.

Reply Score: 2

Not Bing!
by cmost on Thu 28th Jan 2010 01:14 UTC
cmost
Member since:
2006-07-16

At least they decided not to go with Bing for God's sake!

Reply Score: 2

RE: Not Bing!
by Mellin on Thu 28th Jan 2010 01:59 UTC in reply to "Not Bing!"
Mellin Member since:
2005-07-06

yahoo is bing

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Not Bing!
by KAMiKAZOW on Thu 28th Jan 2010 14:36 UTC in reply to "RE: Not Bing!"
KAMiKAZOW Member since:
2005-07-06

yahoo is bing

No, it's not. Yahoo doesn't even use Bing, yet. Or have you seen a "powered by Bing" banner anywhere?

Reply Score: 3

Homepage
by Xaero_Vincent on Thu 28th Jan 2010 02:56 UTC
Xaero_Vincent
Member since:
2006-08-18

All default homepages in Linux browsers should be links to distribution support pages: message boards, forums, documentation, release document, and How-Tos.

Reply Score: 3

That's fantastic
by theantix on Thu 28th Jan 2010 04:17 UTC
theantix
Member since:
2005-07-06

Having the Ubuntu distro earn money is great for long-term sustainability of the project. I'm glad they decided to go this way (allowing user to switch from the default) instead of doing something more destructive like ads or forcing the search box to be yahoo all the time.

Reply Score: 2

Default providers mean absolutely nothing
by Googol on Thu 28th Jan 2010 11:02 UTC
Googol
Member since:
2006-11-24

MS -IE, the widest spread combo, comes with Bing as the default - but what does the world and dog use? Google. The hurdle for change here is so loooow, it is not worth any paper or thought to be wasted on. Ups! I plead guilty ! ;)

Reply Score: 3

strcpy Member since:
2009-05-20

MS -IE, the widest spread combo, comes with Bing as the default - but what does the world and dog use? Google. The hurdle for change here is so loooow, it is not worth any paper or thought to be wasted on. Ups! I plead guilty ! ;)


Exactly. It doesn't mean anything except for those who yell and scream the M-dollar-sign slogan around the internet.

Reply Score: 3

KAMiKAZOW Member since:
2005-07-06

MS -IE, the widest spread combo, comes with Bing as the default - but what does the world and dog use? Google.

Last time I checked, Bing's market share is on the rise.

Reply Score: 3

What is the big deal?
by bolomkxxviii on Thu 28th Jan 2010 16:35 UTC
bolomkxxviii
Member since:
2006-05-19

Anyone can use any search engine they like. Heck, I use several. Who cares what the default is? Anyone reading this site knows enough to change to their favorite.

Reply Score: 3

Bigger is not always better
by irbis on Fri 29th Jan 2010 02:17 UTC
irbis
Member since:
2005-07-08

Google has been the leader in search engine business for some time now. It has had usability, good features and the largest databases. However, let's not completely dismiss the alternatives. The biggest may not always be the best, for your particular information need. It might sometimes be a good idea to give other search providers a chance too.

There is a lot that can still be improved in the field of Internet search. What is considered top quality now may still change many times in the future. Nowadays semantic search is a hot research topic in search engine development, and actually some much smaller new semantic search engines may still be more advanced in that sense than the old big ones: http://www.searchenginejournal.com/semantic-search-engines/9832/

Reply Score: 2

Kubuntu 9.10
by ParadoxUncreated on Fri 29th Jan 2010 13:13 UTC
ParadoxUncreated
Member since:
2009-12-05

Kubuntu is great!

Reply Score: 1

chrome
by vivainio on Fri 29th Jan 2010 17:38 UTC
vivainio
Member since:
2008-12-26

Anyone know whether you can use chrome with yahoo in a fashion that provides profit for canonical? I'm ready to change search engine if it helps ubuntu, but I'd like to stick with chrome.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by ballmerlikesgoogle
by ballmerlikesgoogle on Sat 30th Jan 2010 13:39 UTC
ballmerlikesgoogle
Member since:
2009-10-23

It's simply a matter of preference.

It work, we are mostly a Microsoft shop, but for web it's Firefox and Google.....

At home, its Ubuntu with both Firefox and Chrome with Google and Yahoo search engines

I'm not too terribly bothered by Canonical doing this change enough to start throwing furniture, as long as I'm not restricted on making a choice as who to use as a search engine. (I have limited choices in the workplace, that is not up to me but at home I do have those wonderful choices.)

Got to find my furniture polish.....

Reply Score: 1