Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Chrome Firefox Software Ubuntu Linux

Shuttleworth: Chrome Nearly Replaced FF In Ubuntu 204

jbrodkin writes "Canonical founder Mark Shuttleworth is a big fan of Google Chrome, and says the browser could replace the standard Firefox in future versions of Ubuntu Linux. 'We looked at it closely in the last cycle and the decision was to stick with Firefox,' he says. But the work that Google is doing with Chrome OS — essentially the Chrome browser on top of Linux — is potentially leading to a future in which 'Chrome on Ubuntu and Chrome on Linux is a better experience than Chrome on any other platform [i.e. Windows and Mac].' In a wide-ranging interview, Shuttleworth also discussed why he spent $20 million to become a space tourist but doesn't own a smartphone, controversies over Linux and Unity, the future of Ubuntu tablets, and says the move toward putting personal data in the cloud is 'a little scary.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Shuttleworth: Chrome Nearly Replaced FF In Ubuntu

Comments Filter:
  • Re:NoScript? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Jah-Wren Ryel ( 80510 ) on Monday June 13, 2011 @07:44PM (#36430510)

    Almost, but not really.

    Right. I tried NotScript for a day and couldn't stand it, nowhere near as functional as it is on firefox. I run almost exclusively in deny-all mode with only temporary enabling on specific websites for specific cases, so its not like I use all the fancy stuff in noscript either.

    I've also tried Ghostery for Chrome (from the same guys who do Ghostery for FireFox) and, due to the sucky webkit api, it is totally random what it blocks. At least it tells you what it blocked and what it let through, but hit reload on a page and you'll get a different set of what's been blocked and what's not.

    Chrome is just not functional enough for anyone who gives a damn about personal security online.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 13, 2011 @07:52PM (#36430596)

    Is it wise to run a browser (and when Chrome OS comes out, a full fledged operating system) pushed by the biggest advertising, tracking, and marketing company on the web?

    Nice job vaguely insinuating that Google is bad. What specifically is Chromium doing that you dislike? They release full source, under Apache 2 for their code, GPL for Apple's webkit code. Development is done in the open (you can see every commit, code review, etc.).

    Look at Mozilla's financials: 95% of their revenue is from Google. If it were not for Google funding them over the past 15 years, Firefox would be long dead, and the internet would be IE only. Linux would not have a usable web browser.

    Wouldn't it be better to use something that does not have a vested interest in tracking everything you do online?

    Let me know when one exists. As far as I know, the only other open option is made by Apple, and it's just a rendering library, so you will need to implement your own UI.

    Or is the source for this browser fully open so any nasty evil bits would be spotted by vigilant hackers and purged immediately?

    Yes, it is fully open:

  • by Haedrian ( 1676506 ) on Monday June 13, 2011 @08:31PM (#36430980)

    Argument is very flawed.

    Not all Linux users are 'nerdy' enough to want to play around with a different browser. Some just want to stay with the default. Same for other applications.

    With your same argument I could say that IE is the best browser, because for many years it held more than 50-70% of internet users.

"What the scientists have in their briefcases is terrifying." -- Nikita Khrushchev