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.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2009-08-14
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?
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
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.
Member since:2006-06-22
Member since:
2008-08-09
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-06-29
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.
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
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.
Member since:2009-02-19
Member since:
2008-10-23
Member since:2007-12-26
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
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.
Member since:2005-07-08
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.
Member since:2006-09-02
Member since:
2009-12-27
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.
Member since:2007-03-06
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?
Member since:2008-06-02
Silly rabbit, you misunderstand the Freetard mentality. Canonical is a-okay only because they haven't committed the unforgivable sin of being financially-successful.
Member since:2007-03-06
Member since:2009-10-01
Member since:2005-08-06
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.
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
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....
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:2005-10-02
Member since:2005-07-06
.Member since:
2005-10-02
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.
Member since:
2009-03-20
Member since:
2009-04-08
Member since:2007-04-25
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.
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!"
:)
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:
2007-06-12
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.
Member since:
2009-03-11
Member since:
2006-07-15
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:2005-07-12
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.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-07-06
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.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2006-12-05
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
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.
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 
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.
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.
Member since:2009-08-18
Member since:2007-01-11
Member since:2008-10-30
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....
Member since:2009-12-24
Member since:2005-09-28
Member since:2005-10-02
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:2007-01-11
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.
Member since:
2006-07-16
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:
2006-08-18
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:
2006-11-24
Member since:2009-05-20
Exactly. It doesn't mean anything except for those who yell and scream the M-dollar-sign slogan around the internet.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:
2006-05-19
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/
Member since:
2009-12-05
Member since:
2008-12-26
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.....