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.'"
NoScript? (Score:4, Interesting)
Does Chrome have a flexible JavaScript blocker like NoScript yet?
Re: (Score:1)
Does Chrome have a flexible JavaScript blocker like NoScript yet?
Yes. [google.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Almost, but not really [informaction.com].
Re:NoScript? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Chrome is good enough for checking the Mail/News/Comics, But you should use 2 browsers anyway. One where you want to be tracked, and one where you don't. I don't expect Chrome to work with Tor, but sometimes I need to be able to have one big account so i can be tied in to automatically download the app i clicked on to my phone. And I'm sure as hell not going to use IE.
Re: (Score:3)
But you should use 2 browsers anyway
Make that at least 2 browsers. I use Chromium (Google search/maps/etc.), Firefox (general browsing), and Opera (shopping and banking). All have privacy and security set to not-quite-paranoid levels, with history, cookies, and flash objects completely wiped per session and occasionally wiped within a session. I don't use Chrome, and I only use IE on the windows PC at work where it's almost mandatory for intranet stuff.
Re:NoScript? (Score:4, Insightful)
But you should use 2 browsers anyway
Make that at least 2 browsers. I use Chromium (Google search/maps/etc.), Firefox (general browsing), and Opera (shopping and banking). All have privacy and security set to not-quite-paranoid levels, with history, cookies, and flash objects completely wiped per session and occasionally wiped within a session. I don't use Chrome, and I only use IE on the windows PC at work where it's almost mandatory for intranet stuff.
Unless you're a spy, terrorist or criminal, you are quite paranoid.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I only use IE on the windows PC at work where it's almost mandatory for intranet stuff.
In that case it's not mandatory, so you shouldn't even be using it at work.
Re: (Score:2)
Chrome is good enough for checking the Mail/News/Comics,
No, it isn't, because the noscript-like tool is not reliable and it gets in your way, and I won't surf ANY site any more without protection, lest I become clickjacked, or simply load a malicious banner ad.
And I'm sure as hell not going to use IE.
False dichotomy much?
Re: (Score:2)
>>>you should use 2 browsers anyway.
Right.
Firefox plus Opera (which stores bookmarks online, and has image compression to avoid ISP overage fees). Not chrome. I don't like how it's organized, or its lack of FF/opera-style addons and features.
Re: (Score:3)
Chrome is developed by a company who's very business model is to keep track of you. Of course it doesn't make it easy to block such surveillance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Right. That's what the original poster wanted to know: If Chrome has a javascript blocker.
Apparently, there is still some work to be done. I'm betting we'll see a more appropriate script blocker soon enough. Certainly by the time it becomes the browser in Ubuntu.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently, there is still some work to be done.
Chrome extensions are in this state permanently, since their inception 2 years ago.
On topic: sort'a reminds me of the Linux on Desktop. Kind of works and is there already - but "there is still some work to be done." For a decade now.
Re: (Score:2)
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/odjhifogjcknibkahlpidmdajjpkkcfn?hl=en-US [google.com]
Funnily I haven't needed one. I use AdBlock and Vimium, and don't browse dodge circus midget site any longer.
Firefox? (Score:1)
I have to admit, I've forgotten about Firefox since using Chrome on Ubuntu...
Reasons being the one process per tab feature as well as speed and stability.
right then (Score:1)
I've never understood the carelevel for what comes default so much. I forget what the default browser is in debian, but it isn't firefox/iceweasel, at least it wasn't. not konq either.. uh.. e-something. And yet i have no problems getting firefox running more or less instantly upon install.
apt-get install browser-you-like; done
Nor do i see a purpose for *buntu, surely plain ubuntu has other WMs available through apt, no?
ps - why chrome over chromium?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Epiphany. The world's most useless browser. Basically, it was Galeon with all its features removed, and then replaced with a silly tag-based bookmarking system that is so unintuitive to use that no-one would ever bother with it.
Re:right then (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a similar situation for the other Window Managers. Why require a user to install and configure major interface-changing software like that, when you're marketing your OS as dead-simple to use?
Re: (Score:2)
Well why not make the ubuntu installer ask whether you'd like kde or gnome or xfce instead of managing 8 *buntus...? Seems so terribly redundant.
If you're catering to folk that are too derp to apt-get install firefox, they could install 5 browsers by default and pop up a pretty window asking them which they'd like to try, in the age of terabyte HDDs.
Re:ask (Score:3)
If I skip your derp comment, I've always said I've gotta be the central midline Linux target. I need a little help, but I'm no turbo-newbie either.
Firefox was my learning gateway to ditch IE. Cue the extensions. So I don't have mutch patience for the new fad of "OMG Chrome is 6% faster". Anyone that fickle is in trouble in other areas.
To get a Linux distro going, SOMETHING has to be stable. I'm already wrestling over the desktop environment question. KDE isn't perfect. I'm just about to try XKCE or LX-somet
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Chrome's interface and stability are what eventually won me over. It really does simplify the browser interface down to what is needed.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, Ubuntu has a very easy little store interface that anyone can install browsers from.
But the point is that you're trying to bring in users who are barely aware that there are keys to the left and right of the spacebar. "Oh look, would you like KDE or Gnome or XFCE or Afterstep or Sawfish or Blackbox or CDE or..." Most of those the average person can't pronounce, let alone remember the name of or have any clue about. And quite frankly, the only difference I can tell between KDE and Gnome is that
Re: (Score:2)
Possibly because putting all the desktop environments on one CD would take up too much space. The WUBI installer (that installs Ubuntu with its boot partition in a file on an NTFS partition that can be installed and removed from Windows with Add/Remove programs [note, its still a dual boot, not a "runs under Windows" system like, e.g., Portable Ubuntu]), which grab
Re: (Score:2)
So?
I thought we already had a CD and DVD release: Give out one stripped-down CD ISO with one WM etc, and release a DVD with all of them and an installer that lets you choose(with pictures).
Re: (Score:2)
It's still important for the distro to fit on a single CD.
Why?
Up the space to a single layer dvd like the fedora dvd releases, and you can fit pretty much all the software you will ever need on it. All the common window managers, compilers, ides, games, etc.
I never understood why people think that the software for their entire system has to come in at under 600mb, in 2011.
This fixes those people that are like 'I'm not going to use k*whatever because it needs me to download QT, because it is already on the system. (not to mention they fail to realize they only have
Re: (Score:3)
Sort the bloody tab key out (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can embed evince [hyperlogos.org] (and presumably okular or whatever), which loads slightly more slowly and doesn't capture the Ctrl+F and Ctrl+P hotkeys (those will be picked up by the browser and not work), but has a few more features than the non-free PDF viewer by Google Chrome.
I've also had trouble getting the Chrome viewer to work consistently in Chromium. It repeatedly crashed or failed to load, requiring a browser restart. This could be related to version discrepancies, though, as I used the .so from Chrome 13 (
I'd miss the Firefox addons (Score:2)
Puppy Linux has the non-google Chromium as its standard browser, and it works well for that compact distribution, but I do miss all the Firefox addons. Like Youtube downloaders, Flash video downloaders, NoScript, CW's video plugin to watch free shows, and so on.
I'd sooner that Ubuntu stick with Firefox.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Puppy Linux has the non-google Chromium as its standard browser, and it works well for that compact distribution, but I do miss all the Firefox addons. Like Youtube downloaders, Flash video downloaders, NoScript, CW's video plugin to watch free shows, and so on.
I'd sooner that Ubuntu stick with Firefox.
What's installed by default mostly affects new users who don't have a strong preference for particular applications. I'll continue to use Firefox whether or not it's installed by default on Ubuntu, since it will still be in the repositories. That's what I've already been doing with Thunderbird (Ubuntu's default mail program Evolution sucks) and Pidgin (Empathy isn't flexible enough).
Chromium? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Why bother forking Chromium when they can just contribute back to the original project? There's usually no point to forking unless you have trouble getting the maintainer to merge in your changes.
Re: (Score:2)
What does forking have to do with anything? They didn't fork Firefox, they just made a plugin.
Re: (Score:2)
when they can just contribute back to the original project?
This is Canonical. They don't do that sort of thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Fox In the Henhouse (Score:2, Interesting)
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? Wouldn't it be better to use something that does not have a vested interest in tracking everything you do online? Or is the source for this browser fully open so any nasty evil bits would be spotted by vigilant hackers and purged immediately?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Fox In the Henhouse (Score:5, Informative)
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: http://src.chromium.org/viewvc
Funded by Google for 7 years - not 15 (Score:2)
According to this article the Mozilla foundation started being funded by Google in 2004 [theregister.co.uk]. Firefox was originally started while it was still in AOL back in 2002 so at most it could have only been funded by Google for at most 9 years :-). Google provide 86% of Mozilla's funding back in 2009 [theregister.co.uk] but those are the latest results I could find.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly. Whether or not WebKit (and Safari/Chrome) existed, Konqueror wasn't going to just vanish without Mozilla. In fact, it may well have gotten more development support (it's already a good browser, but any project that big could use more contributors). Don't like KDE dependencies? Extract the rendering engine (KHTML, the base of WebKit) and put it in your own browser (which is pretty much what Apple did, plus maintaining their own version).
Then there's Opera. Say what you will about proprietary softwar
Re: (Score:2)
Say what you will about proprietary software, Opera is a pretty damn good browser and runs on Linux.
100% Agreed. Everyone keeps talking about Firefox's extensions and Chrome's speed. Opera has been right there with Chrome the whole way plus has the accelerator for lower bandwidth connections, the Unite package (which say what you will is a fantastic piece of kit) and by far the best RSS feeder I've seen. And on top of that, Opera's linux offering is always released at the same time as Windows & OSX.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ad Homium #1...
Don't try to use Latin if you fail so pathetically at it.
...that Google has become
Ad Homium #2...
Oh, hello Google!
Do you think google is somehow using mind control to keep you and everyone else from understanding the source?
Chromium "calling home" is a well-known fact, I don't even have to look at the source code to understand that the tracking is done server-side, not in the client.
Re: (Score:2)
Come on. If it were not for Google funding them over the past 15 years, somebody else would.
Really? Consider that both the #2 and #3 search engine is both powered by Microsoft, who'd clearly not want to break the IE dominance and most of open source would rebel at the idea. #4 is a tie between Ask Jeeves and Baidu with about 0.4% of the market, they wouldn't have the financial muscle.
Google has paid Mozilla very well to break IEs dominance, I think they've seen it just as much an investment as an expense. And in that, mission accomplished. But I find it unlikely that Google is that interested in f
Re: (Score:2)
Mozilla / Firefox was pushed by Google for a very long time. If I'm remembering my history correctly, Google was their largest funding source up until Chrome.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you not know that most of Firefox's revenue comes from Google?
And no vigilant hackers are not what we need. vigilant programmers are. If you bothered to look before you posted you find that Chromium is FOSS under the Apache 2 license. In other words this poast was a waste of electrons and sound like Microsoft level FUD.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you not know that most of Firefox's revenue comes from Google?
And no vigilant hackers are not what we need. vigilant programmers are. If you bothered to look before you posted you find that Chromium is FOSS under the Apache 2 license. In other words this poast was a waste of electrons and sound like Microsoft level FUD.
My post was about Chrome (which is what I was sure this article was about). I had honestly never heard of Chromium until now. I will check it out sometime when the whim strikes or if Firefox/Iceweasel ever stop being useful to me. And my line about vigilant hackers was merely for dramatically silly effect. Nothing more.
And despite what other posters in this thread mistakenly assumed, I was not insinuating that Google is evil and should be avoided at all costs (I reserve that honor to Sony. Heh). No, I
Re: (Score:2)
"I had honestly never heard of Chromium until now."
So you posted from the point of ignorance.
" And my line about vigilant hackers was merely for dramatically silly effect. "
So you feel that emotional manipulation is useful tactic.
So your post combines ignorance with the level of arrogance that cause you to feel that manipulation is needed to inform those that are not as wise you.
When dealing with technical issues it is better to use facts and not manipulation.
Re: (Score:2)
It's wise to be cautious and go into the decision with no faith.
The awesome thing about Free Software, is that it doesn't require faith. Chromium is there for you to see. If you like what you see, then there's nothing unwise about running it.
Brands (Score:2)
Why contemplate Google Chrome? Dump the Google branding and install Chromium instead. Still, Firefox has vastly more plug-ins which make browsing more bearable, which is why it has a bigger following. If only they could stop some of the plug-ins from being so damn slow.
Re: (Score:2)
I have a lot of stability issues with chromium, and we all know ubuntu is not about to put any effort into improving anything if they can get something better next door
Re: (Score:2)
Summary (Score:2)
On whether Chrome will replace Firefox in Ubuntu: Not in the next year, at least.
On companies wanting to own your personal data: It is a little scary.
On Unity vs. Gnome 3: Clearly, some people like Unity and some really don't.
On whether Canonical doesn't contribute enough to the kernel: That's not true.
On why he doesn't own a smartphone: Because he hasn't bought one. Yet.
On why there's no Ubuntu tablet: Unity doesn't really work as a tablet interface.
On getting everyone to use free software: It will be diff
Re: (Score:2)
On why there's no Ubuntu tablet: Unity doesn't really work as a tablet interface.
Wow, so there it is! He single-handedly pushes something designed for tablets to our desktops, only we all hate it here. Then someone thinks logically and wants to see if its original environment is any better barring the suspected "lost-in-translation syndrome"... only that he admits it's just as broken on tablets.
What was the progress made with Unity, then, other than hurt usage share? Then he goes on to mention Chrome/ium although non-geeks use Firefox. He's probably planning to whittle his ratio of Lin
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed...WOW!
Tell me again...what is the fscking point of Unity then!
To push you onto XCFE.
They managed to do it. My only regret: they should have done it earlier!
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting that you thought that...it seems everybody on /. at least thought that. But has anyone at Canonical ever said that? I can't recall a statement like that. When you think about it, Unity is actually terrible as tablet UI. It borrows more ideas from OSX than iOS.
The Cloud vs. Free Software (Score:2, Insightful)
The Cloud is closed. Even more closed than all IBM's, Microsoft and Apples of this world ever have been. Does Mark realise that he makes his entire Ubuntu project obsolete by trusting The Cloud? We can just stick with the pre-installed Windows or OSX, if all our stuff is in that fucking Cloud. Actually would be more secure than using Googlezillas Spyware...
Re: (Score:3)
Which is why some people at Google have created the Data Liberation Front [dataliberation.org]. You should not feel safe using a cloud-based service unless you are able to download all of your data from the service whenever you like.
Re: (Score:2)
No, its not.
Offerings of particular service providers may or may not be closed, but "the cloud", itself, is not (in fact, "the cloud" is something that you can run yourself with open source software; Ubuntu Server even includes infrastructure for it in the form of Ubuntu Enterprise Cloud.)
One more reason: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Not to use Ubuntu and to stick with Linux Mint. Why is Ubuntu so prone to horrible choices like this?
Re:One more reason: (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is Ubuntu so prone to horrible choices like this?
The answer's pretty simple: They've stopped listening.
Ubuntu is slipping out of control. Canonical have stopped listening and – more importantly – working with the community. The number of defects is growing, but Canonical’s response is to make it harder for mere mortals to submit bugs. They seem to think that strong guidance is needed for their product to grow in new and interesting ways. Fair enough, but they’re confusing leadership with control. They’re simply imposing their views because they don’t value the discussion. They’re treating criticism as opposition and shutting themselves off from valid feedback.
Worse, they simply don’t have the number of skilled developers they need to achieve their goals. When I look at the bug queues on some packages, I shudder in sympathy with the poor souls who are expected to wrangle them. Canonical is clearly embarked on an impossible task, but nobody’s either got the guts or the vision to spell this out to Shuttleworth and co.
(This is excerpted from a slightly longer piece [imagicity.com] I wrote after 11.04 was released.)
Re: (Score:2)
Excellent post man, even if it was a response to my obvious flamebait (tongue fully in cheek). Off to read the full article!!
Except your basic thesis is wrong. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You've missed A LOT. They do use Ubuntu repos, for one version, however, they stuck with gnome 2, and a host of other better choices in the app stack. Then there's the Debian edition, the xfce edition.....
And every edition is superior to Ubuntu and every other distro on the market by leaps and bounds. You really need to get over there and check out Linux Mint right away. As of version 10 (it's currently at version 11), it is the best OS ever released, period, and I would easily put it up against any OS
Re: (Score:2)
One man show? There are more developers than Clem. And Clem always makes better decisions than Shuttleworth. According to most metrics Linux Mint is the #2 distro in the world, and growing fast. I don't think you gave it a thorough enough shot. It's more stable, faster, has a better default layout. It's got tons of advantages over every other distro I've tried. I install Linux Mint, I walk away and my client is happy indefinitely.
Re: (Score:2)
What would be nice is for all the people upset with Ubuntu to switch to being either Mint or upstream (Debian) devs.
To me, Chrome still does not `cut it` [yet]... (Score:4, Interesting)
While I appreciate the enormous strides Google and their Chrome team have achieved, the Chrome browser does not cut it in my case because: -
1: It still *is* an unfinished product...(read, "lacks print preview"). I understand this issue is now being addressed as of Chrome 13.0.782.1 Beta.
2: I find its interface weird...(consider what happens to the interface once extensions are installed).
Question: Is it just me?
Re: (Score:2)
I find print-to-PDF works as a print preview, albeit less convenient. But for a long time Chrome couldn't print to anything but US letter, which was a showstopper for me. (My Firefox still resets the page size to US letter once in a while, for unknown reasons.) Frankly I find that printing sucks on every web browser I've used -- if I want a half-decent printout, I paste the content into an OOWriter document and tweak it by hand.
Re: (Score:2)
3: It doesn't render some websites correctly.
My default browser remains firefox for this reason.
Re: (Score:2)
In that case, I'd expect IE to be your default browser. Do you know that it's a bug in Chrome and not in the website?
I tend to use Chrome until a website actually breaks in a way that makes me try it in Firefox -- and then, half the time, it still won't work.
Re: (Score:2)
There are definitely some odd bugs still in Chrome regarding layout, since I use it side by side with Safari and they both share the same Webkit core (not literally on the machine, but both are webkit - you see what I mean), and I sometimes run across oddities in Chrome that necessitate me jumping over to Safari where they work fine.
It's mostly layout related issues, especially with printing pages, but with regular web layout too.
Re: (Score:2)
Why? I don't run windows and I already use firefox. Did you notice I already said firefox was my default browser?
Why should I care? Firefox renders the website correctly and the website is part of enterprise software that existed long before Chrome. If it renders correctly on IE and Firefox, why should the website rewrite its code to conform to the new kid on the block?
Re: (Score:2)
Do you know that it's a bug in Chrome and not in the website?
Why should I care?... If it renders correctly on IE and Firefox, why should the website rewrite its code to conform to the new kid on the block?
It shouldn't. It should rewrite its code to conform to the very old w3c standards, and then consider browser-specific hacks when something's broken. "Works best on Firefox" is no better than "Works best on IE", and every time a site does that, it's holding back development of the Web and web browsers.
That's why I asked, and that's why you should care. If the bug is in Chrome, then you and this website can safely ignore it, though the Chromium developers would probably appreciate a bug report. If the bug is
Re: (Score:2)
I don't notice that much speed difference on my systems at work or home. I have enough headroom in my CPU when I'm not doing massive data processing that I believe even the slowest benchmarked web browser wouldn't be noticeable. I do have a netbook that I carry around with me, and Firefox 4 hasn't been noticeably slow on that one either.
I'm not advocating against Chrome (or Chromium). I just stated a reason why I stick with firefox. As for bug reports, unless the Chrome team know and have access to Deltek,
Re: (Score:2)
I was wondering about this, and if Chrome has layout rendering bugs, or if those bugs are hacks + work-arounds for other browsers.
http://acid3.acidtests.org/ [acidtests.org] agrees with the latter.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I tried switching to Chrome for a month. I kept using IE 9 and Firefox 4.
Problems ... hell even netscape 1.0.
1. Can't select my common websites with a mouse click within the address bar like IE, Firefox,
- This drives me up the wall! I hate typing in the url each time I want to visit slashdot. Sure in Windows 7 I can right click the icon, but slashdot is not in the top 6 sites I visit and is not listed. This is not optional in MacOS or Linux
2. Why should I go into settings/preferences just to access my bookm
Re: (Score:2)
Before they implement Print Preview, they might want to fix the actual printing first. Try printing out a slashdot or wikipedia article in Chrome and compare the results to Firefox. The amount of paper it uses is ridiculous.
I agree the placement of the extension icons is a bit ridiculous. They should really be put into their own menu.
Re: (Score:2)
Printing web sites is evil.
let your users decide (or they will leave) (Score:3)
Shuttleworth should much more rely on what users want, instead of making decisions for users.
Canonical can tell what users want based on usage statistics. Once close to 30-50% of users post-install Chrome or Unity, with a growing trend, then consider making these things the default. Until then, keep the old, tried and true the default.
Re:let your users decide (or they will leave) (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
And they should get the tried and true, instead of whbatever a geek like Shuttleworth happens to like these days.
Stop hallucinating and putting words in my mouth. Where did I make an argument anywhere that more users for so
Re: (Score:2)
Just because Shuttleworth's decisions sometimes agree accidentally with some statistics doesn't mean he picks by statistics.
"Better" for who and according to what criteria? Many users want something that just works, not something with more features.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pointing out that this (if it happens) will only apply to _new_ installs.
If you upgrade from a previous release, it will keep your existing applications.
This is how it's done'
Sorry dude (Score:2)
Disastrous news (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Some like the minimalist approach to less menus; keyboard navigation trumps trackpads on netbooks, for example.
All the browser phone-home calls are known and not a secret [mattcutts.com], so where do you find this mysterious information that it's a concern?
You ran free software on a non-free OS? Your argument is invalid. Hand over your geek badge! ;P
alt.chrome.die.die.die (Score:2)
Everytime I use Chrome (or indeed have an article comparing Firefox to Chrome anymore) I learn to abhor it that little bit more.
If chrome were a car it would 'upgraded' to a different model every six months, while they slowly pulled out your manual transmission for an automatic, accelerator for cruise control, steering wheel for google maps integration, brakes for collision detection, windshield for a blank screen, all while for some godawful reason telling you how good you have it why would you need any of
Re: (Score:2)
Everytime I use Chrome (or indeed have an article comparing Firefox to Chrome anymore) I learn to abhor it that little bit more.
If chrome were a car it would 'upgraded' to a different model every six months, while they slowly pulled out your manual transmission for an automatic, accelerator for cruise control, steering wheel for google maps integration, brakes for collision detection, windshield for a blank screen, all while for some godawful reason telling you how good you have it why would you need any of those to drive.
...and that's why it fits so well into Ubuntu.
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't they have to switch to Chromium?
This is the case with Lubuntu (version of Ubuntu using LXDE instead of Gnome/KDE/others). It uses Chromium as its default browser, although others can be installed.
Lubuntu is not yet an "official" version of Ubuntu, but is expected to become one with the release of 11.10 Oneiric Ocelot.