Slashdot Mirror
Ubuntu's New Firefox Is Watching You
sukotto writes "Ubuntu recently released an unannounced and experimental 'multisearch' extension to Firefox alpha 3, apparently in an effort to improve the default behavior of new tabs and of search. In a response to one of the initial bug reports the maintainers mentioned that the extension's other purposes were 'collecting the usage data' and 'generating revenue.' Since this extension installs by itself and offers no warning about potential privacy violations, quite a few people (myself included) feel pretty unhappy. The only way to opt out is to disable the extension manually via Tools > Add-ons." Most posters to this Ubuntu forum thread are not happy about multisearch.
I installed Linux Mint about a month ago looking for a new Linux distribution to put on a cheap laptop I had just gotten. All the search pages, no matter where I searched, were coming up branded "Linux Mint". Didn't take too long for me to get annoyed at this, especially when I found out there was no way whatsoever to remove the addon from Firefox. I ended up downloading the mozilla.com distributed package and overwriting the symlinks by hand. Mint is based on Ubuntu, but my 9.04 installs don't have this in there. I guess this is one "innovation" that made it back up the food chain. Personally embarassing for me, since I had just finished recommending Linux Mint to several friends, aquaintances, and customers.
I actually use that often in Firefox, if I want to save my tabs (usually I don't) I simply killalll firefox-bin.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
stick with the grand-daddies of Linux, Debian is your best bet since you are already familiar with ubuntu, if you feel adventurous maybe give Slackware a spin.
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
The problem is that Ubuntu is shipping a modified version of Firefox instead of the default Firefox shipped by Mozilla.
No it's not. Patches and plugins are fine if they make a positive impact or at least do not make a negative impact and are easily removed. Negative features such as this are not very tolerable regardless of how easy it is to remove.
They don't want the named changed to Shiretoko or IceWeasel.
Shiretoko is Mozilla's own codename for Firefox 3.5. You don't get accuse Slashdot (and every other Linux-topic webpage on the Internet) of changing Ubuntu 9.04's name to "Jaunty", do you?
Some do prefer the name change. When I use Ubuntu I install abrowser, which strips out Mozilla's branding. It's much better for the distributions to make changes to vanilla Firefox and change the name (because Mozilla insists) over not making any changes.
They don't want the icons changed.
It's a one-time adjustment. "Click that one, Grandma. The one that says '$FOOBAR Web Browser'." They needed to do it when switching from IE anyways. If they could do it once they can do it again.
They don't want weird extensions that change behaviour.
Define 'weird'. ABP changes behavior, but I seriously doubt anybody (ad providers excluded) would complain if it were installed. I never found Ubuntu's modifications very offensive in how they changed it (They put "Ubuntu Package Search" as an engine in the search bar? How dare they!).
They also don't want updates to come from Ubuntu repositories, as they do for every other package. They want the newest version of Firefox from Mozilla at the exact moment that Mozilla ships it.
Since when do you speak for the general population? It seems that that is exactly the inverse of what they want. They don't want to deal with half a dozen individual self-updating programs. They want the programs to leave them alone. Seriously, have you ever done tech support for someone that had the latest patches of anything other than maybe commercial games? Anybody that understands enough to download Firefox from Mozilla is capable of coping with a distribution's unique name for a Firefox build.
I understand the reasoning behind Ubuntu and Debian's policies, but I think it is obvious that Firefox trumps Ubuntu.
I know Debian's policies and how they apply to Firefox, but what do you think Ubuntu's are? AFAIK, Ubuntu has no policy governing this.
You earlier referred to Firefox being called "Shiretoko". To my knowledge, no distribution calls it that for their default Firefox. I do know, however, that is what Ubuntu is calling 3.5 at the moment. But not out of pressure from ideals. Rather, they call it that because sudo apt-get install firefox will install 3.0.x. They call it Shiretoko because, as I noted earlier, that's what Mozilla calls it; and because the name "Firefox" is already being used by 3.0. That will change when they get around to making 3.5 the default.
They should make a special exception for it.
Unacceptable. An exception means that either Debian doesn't make security patches without getting approval from Mozilla. This puts Debian's security entirely in Mozilla's hands. Their current version, Lenny (and Squeeze, and Sid) is using the 3.0.x branch. It will remain there for the next two years. Meanwhile, Mozilla has moved on to the 3.5.x branch and intends to move on to 3.6.x this fall and 3.7.x in the spring. They aren't going to be putting much support into 3.0.x two years down the road.