Linked by Moochman on Sat 2nd Dec 2017 00:06 UTC
Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu

Ars Technica once again provides us with an in-depth Ubuntu review:

If you've been following the Linux world at all, you know this has been an entire year for spring cleaning. Early in 2017, Canonical stopped work on its homegrown Unity desktop, Mir display server, and its larger vision of 'convergence' - a unified interface for Ubuntu for phones, tablets, and desktops.

And now almost exactly six years after Ubuntu first switched from GNOME 2 to the Unity desktop, that has been dropped, too. The distro is back to GNOME, and Canonical recently released Ubuntu 17.10, a major update with some significant changes coming to the popular Ubuntu Linux operating system.

In light of the GNOME switch, this release seems like more of a homecoming than an entirely new voyage. But that said, Ubuntu 17.10 simultaneously feels very much like the start of a new voyage for Ubuntu.

Thread beginning with comment 651626
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: No difference
by Morgan on Tue 5th Dec 2017 12:44 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: No difference"
Morgan
Member since:
2005-06-29

My biggest gripe with the new Firefox is that, with the 57.0.1 update, it silently changes your search provider to Google. I spoke with a Mozilla dev about it and their not-so-friendly response was "LOL don't use a spyware search provider, use Google". Thanks, but I use Startpage because I don't want Google spying on me. Startpage isn't spyware and is one of the safer search engines.

Another dev pointed me to the bug entry for the "feature", which says any search provider not using HTTPS will silently change to Google. Startpage uses HTTPS only, so that's also not true. It's a blatant attempt by Mozilla to sweeten their new deal with Google, and it's disgusting.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: No difference
by Alfman on Tue 5th Dec 2017 14:46 in reply to "RE[4]: No difference"
Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

Morgan,

My biggest gripe with the new Firefox is that, with the 57.0.1 update, it silently changes your search provider to Google. I spoke with a Mozilla dev about it and their not-so-friendly response was "LOL don't use a spyware search provider, use Google". Thanks, but I use Startpage because I don't want Google spying on me. Startpage isn't spyware and is one of the safer search engines.

Another dev pointed me to the bug entry for the "feature", which says any search provider not using HTTPS will silently change to Google. Startpage uses HTTPS only, so that's also not true. It's a blatant attempt by Mozilla to sweeten their new deal with Google, and it's disgusting.


I've noticed things like this too, such as my search engine and "tab page" preferences being overwritten by firefox updates. While I do consider this unethical, I understand that accepting money from advertisers including google is mozilla's primary source of revenue. Therefor I'm at a loss to suggest what they should do here. By refusing to go along with unethical advertiser demands, mozilla faces a serious existential crisis due to lack of funding.

Hypothetically users could start paying for firefox themselves. This would require changes at mozilla because right now they have a bit of "our way or the highway" attitude towards users, which would have to be reversed in the event that users were paying. However users have an expectation that browsers are free and ultimately I'm highly skeptical that they would pay for firefox when other browsers are free. So I don't know what choice mozilla has other than to shed its paid staff or get in bed with advertisers?

Steve balmer was wrong, linux isn't cancer, advertisers are, ha! After all, nobody is forced to use linux, but advertisers are invading all aspects of our lives.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: No difference
by Morgan on Tue 5th Dec 2017 15:13 in reply to "RE[5]: No difference"
Morgan Member since:
2005-06-29

I agree, it's a sticky situation for Mozilla. I just think if they're going to say "we're bastions of Internet freedom and we fight for your right to a free and open Internet", they should rethink their overall approach to their user base. Silently changing user's custom settings and lying about the reason behind it (claiming non-Google search providers don't use HTTPS when they clearly do is dishonest at best) is user-hostile and runs the risk of turning away those very eyeballs Google just tried to buy.

Not to mention, people like me who have tried to excise Google from their lives now have to weigh whether the Google/Mozilla deal impacts that decision in other ways. After all, the only real cross-platform alternative to a Mozilla based browser is a Chrome based browser. Edge is nice but it's Windows only.

Reply Parent Score: 2