Ubuntu Moves To Yahoo For Default Firefox Search

An anonymous reader writes "Starting in Ubuntu's Lucid Lynx release, Firefox's default search engine will be switched from Google to Yahoo. The switch was made after Canonical 'negotiated a revenue sharing deal with Yahoo.' Google will still be available as a choice. Since Yahoo search is now powered by Microsoft's Bing, this would seem to mean that Microsoft will be paying people for using Ubuntu."

Comments

first post

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft paying people to use other Operating Systems? That's about right.

Even More Money

[syntap]

And if one uses Bing Cashback, one is being paid by Microsoft to use Ubuntu and giving them money to shop online using it, perhaps to buy a Linux-friendly netbook and the cycle continues.

Re:Even More Money

[sopssa]

And if one uses Bing Cashback, one is being paid by Microsoft to use Ubuntu and giving them money to shop online using it, perhaps to buy a Linux-friendly netbook and the cycle continues.

Actually, in neither case is Microsoft actually paying anything.

With Bing Cashback, what users are paid are covered by affiliate commissions send to Microsoft from the participating sites.
With paying Ubuntu, Yahoo/Microsoft is actually paying Ubuntu a share from ad clicks.

In both cases Microsoft isn't losing anything. Actually, they're generating more revenue.

Re:Even More Money

[Ephemeriis]

In both cases Microsoft isn't losing anything. Actually, they're generating more revenue.

My company pays me to do a job. That job, hopefully, earns my company money. Generally more money than they're paying me.

So, they're generating more revenue... But they're still paying me.

Re:Even More Money

[mcgrew]

Thanks for bursting my bubble! I was enjoying the delicious irony, and you go and tell me there is no irony, that MS is just being MS?

Darn you, reality! Now I'm miffed that once again, MS is using means other than having a better product to gain marketshare. I guess when your product is inferior you have to resort to being underhanded.

Re:Even More Money

[betterunixthanunix]

All of which points to a trend that everyone has been aware of for years now: revenue from desktop software sales is becoming less important than revenue from online services; advertising is such a service. It is likely that in the years to come, we will see more of these sorts of deals, particularly on mobile devices.

Re:Even More Money

[Anonymous Coward]

Technically Microsoft isn't paying any money to them since Yahoo! search is still Yahoo! search. Do a quick altavista, bing, google, or yahoo search and you will see the deal still hasn't been approved by the justice department.

Re:Even More Money

[LoSt180]

Speaking of mobile devices - as long the option to change the default is still there, then this isn't a big deal. It's when, say, Microsoft makes a deal with Verizon to remove ALL search options on my Blackberry, leaving Bing as the ONLY option, then these sorts of deals become a serious annoyance.

Re:Even More Money

[betterunixthanunix]

Well, Microsoft is a proprietary software kingpin, so that comes as no surprise. Same old problems, just with different technologies.

Re:Even More Money

[ThePlague]

Which would mean that in this case, MS is making money off of Ubuntu, just like your employers make money off of your labor.

Re:Even More Money

[sopssa]

And that Ubuntu users are actually supporting Microsoft. There is definitely irony in this story, but it's the other way around than what everyone thinks.

Re:Even More Money

[Trepidity]

I think they're phasing it out, but at least initially Microsoft was supplementing some of the cashbacks to get enticing numbers in the double-digit percentages range (much more than merchants would typically offer as an affiliate deal), and I believe the one with eBay (8%!) is still a joint deal.

Re:Even More Money

[sopssa]

I couldn't find out how much eBay pays currently as they have changed their affiliate model, but Amazon offers up to 20% with game downloads, 15% with endless products and up to 8.5% with general products (I suspect Bing can easily qualify for the highest rates). Before eBay used to pay 50%-75% from their income per sale, so I think it's in the same ranges. Some other affiliate commissions can go up to 30-50%, so Microsoft could actually be making extra revenue with the Cashback program.

Re:Even More Money

[cptnapalm]

They were doing a seriously stupid (thank you, Microsoft!) deal pre-Bing when they would pay something like 24%. That's how I got my T1 micro red dot scope.

Doesn't matter

[Rik Sweeney]

It only takes a couple of clicks to change it to a different engine. Hopefully they won't do anything cute and change it back everytime I upgrade (I'm looking at you Microsoft).

Re:Doesn't matter

[mejogid]

All they're doing is changing the system defaults - your user profile will remain exactly. It gives them the potential for a positive cash flow and the only cost is that people who need their Google will have to add 2 seconds to their system set-up process. I'm tempted to go Yahoo anyway due to their better privacy policies, and if doing so helps Canonical then that's pretty tempting. It's good to see a couple of underdogs team up like this, even if Yahoo is semi-backed by MS.

Re:Doesn't matter

[moonbender]

That's literally a couple of clicks, ie. two. On Ars Technica the comment thread was full of nerd rage about a change that takes a single second to undo. Even if they did change it on every upgrade it wouldn't be a big deal (though annoying).

Note that the engine WILL change to Yahoo when you upgrade to 10.04 IF you are currently using Google, ie. if you are using the 10.04 default provider. In that case it will upgrade from one default to the next default. Once you are using a custom search provider, it supposedly won't touch it later.

Re:Doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

It DOES matter (to me) for two reasons:
        a) they clearly stated that upgrades will change your existing setting to yahoo
        b) anyone who takes money from Microsoft to push Bing is on my blacklist

Yes, 'b' is my own personal choice and others are free to disagree but 'a' should never be acceptable. But due to this, I am abandoning my Ubuntu advocacy efforts. I won't actively discourage Ubuntu use over just this transgression, but I will no longer use Ubuntu personally nor recommend it to my family, friends, employer, etc.

Re:Doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

butthurt much?

Re:Doesn't matter

[Devout_IPUite]

I'm nerd raging about all the people who don't have the technical prowess or common sense to not use Bing. Not the people like me who can change it.

Re:Doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

"Privacy"? ROFLMAOTSETUNG! Your search engine database is but 1 transparent layer. Think web forms, data miners following referrer links, local ISP traffic analysis, etc. The point is how do you know the "tooth fairy" wasn't invented by a crazy glue sniffer? You don't. There's another level of objectivity here you fail to consider in reaching such conclusions - you're the ultimate source of defining the world around you, and the moment control leaves your definition of it, such words lose their meaning entirely. Stop chewing on the blue pills.

Re:Doesn't matter

[hughperkins]

Yes because it's so much better to get people to use Windows, rather than to get them to use Ubuntu, and spend a couple of clicks changing their browser to ... well... some search engine that you prefer. I was going to say Google, but their founders seem to be selling out, so who knows what will become of Google?

I think I know what you're saying though: I guess you've been putting lots of effort into advocating Ubuntu, and now you feel betrayed? I guess I can understand that.

Still Ubuntu is I feel pretty cool, but I guess you could be right that accepting sponsorship indirectly Microsoft seems a little .... unwise...

Re:Doesn't matter

[moonbender]

I don't know; if I had more common sense, I'd probably switch to anything BUT Google since they know decidedly too much about me.

Re:Doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Why wouldn't I want to use Bing? Because it is Microsoft's search engine?

I've actually started mixing Bing searches in with Google searches just so I'm not throwing everything Google's way. Maybe I'll throw some Yahoo in there too.

Re:Doesn't matter

[tokul]

It only takes a couple of clicks to change it to a different engine.

It takes two additional clicks. That's another 30 seconds of system setup time or n hours of maintaining own firefox packages with correct defaults. They are wasting admin's time by pushing unwanted changes.

Re:Doesn't matter

[duguk]

about a change that takes a single second to undo

There's around 8 million Ubuntu users. Google has approximately 72.1% (vs 17% for Bing)

This means 5,768,000 users will have to change their setting, meaning nearly TWO MONTHS (66.8 days) of lost time overall.

The old way would mean about 15 days of lost time

Re:Doesn't matter

[JackieBrown]

So will this be enough of a change for Mozilla to revoke Ubuntu from using the name Firefox like they did to Debian?

Re:Doesn't matter

[Erikderzweite]

It will affect new isnstallations only. Existing profiles won't be updated. So, no unwanted changes unless you're doing a clean install (admins rarely do).

Re:Doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

ubuntu is getting profit ahead of its users, and this is the problem. I expect the default of a "for the users" linux to be the best of the flock, not chosen by revenue deals. (I'm not saying there that google is the best, only that the choice should not be revenue driven)

bye bye ubuntu. I'm returning to debian.

Re:Doesn't matter

[Known Nutter]

They are wasting admin's time by pushing unwanted changes.

Think of it as job security.

Re:Doesn't matter

[tyrione]

That's literally a couple of clicks, ie. two. On Ars Technica the comment thread was full of nerd rage about a change that takes a single second to undo. Even if they did change it on every upgrade it wouldn't be a big deal (though annoying).

Note that the engine WILL change to Yahoo when you upgrade to 10.04 IF you are currently using Google, ie. if you are using the 10.04 default provider. In that case it will upgrade from one default to the next default. Once you are using a custom search provider, it supposedly won't touch it later.

How technically savvy can these nerds be if they are up in arms with this change?

Re:Doesn't matter

[__aamhyo4754]

Better privacy, really? At least Google has finally taken some responsibility for filtering in China. I haven't seen that in Yahoo's case. Yahoo also has some bad records of turning in dissidents to the authorities there. Both companies retain your search data for over a year. In short I wouldn't look to either for privacy. You can also use scroogle to search with some peace of mind.

Re:Doesn't matter

[Americano]

OHNOES, an anonymous coward on slashdot is going to "stop using Ubuntu" and "stop recommending it to family, friends, employer, etc." Looks like Ubuntu is done for.

Just when I was starting to believe that 2010 was the year of the Linux desktop, too. :(

Re:Doesn't matter

[Neoprofin]

You're assuming that everyone who uses Ubuntu will switch it back to Google.

I personally continue to use Google for things but mostly out of habit. I'm very impressed with a lot of the things Bing is doing though especially the new recipe search they unveiled and I bet a lot of other used don't care either way.

Re:Doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Fail. Read it again, It already assumes that those that use Google (the 72%) will continue to want to use Google.

Re:Doesn't matter

[LoSt180]

Probably not, I think I remember a few months ago someone at Mozilla speaking out against Google over privacy issues and recommending people change their default to Bing. It's just a "default" search provider, not like they're making Yahoo the "only" search provider.

Re:Doesn't matter

[natehoy]

A change in the default from one of the supported search engines to another of the supported search engines?

This isn't a material change to Firefox at all. It's a change to one of the many defaults.

This is actually less invasive than changing the home page to Ubuntu's landing site, or adding all the Ubuntu shortcuts to the bookmarks toolbar. And Firefox has not, to my knowledge, said "boo" about either of those.

Re:Doesn't matter

[Steve Max]

Funny.

Novell makes a cross-licensing deal with Microsoft, one that doesn't affect their users in any way, shape or form and gives benefits to both companies, then everybody and their dog says they won't touch OpenSuse with a 5-meter pole anymore and that only Microsoft shills will ever see a Suse desktop anymore.

Canonical makes an advertising deal with Yahoo/Microsoft, making ALL their users use a Microsoft product by default, and possibly giving more benefit to Microsoft/Yahoo (in marketshare) than to Canonical (they already got a cut from Google results), then someone saying they won't use or advocate Ubuntu gets modded as flamebait?

Which way is it? In every respect, this deal is as bad as Novell's; and in some ways, it's worse, because Linux users will be increasing Microsoft's cash reserves, reserves which can be used to buy governments to support a MS-only environment, to run anti-FLOSS FUD, etc. Besides this deal actually changes something for the users, unlike Novell's. And ideologically, it gives more legitimacy to Bing on FLOSS circles, which can be as much of a trojan horse (or better, the beginning of a slippery slope where "just one more" Microsoft product won't matter until we're fucked).

I can see someone saying neither deal matters that much, and neither impacts their companies' image. But I really can't see someone saying this deal is better for the FLOSS community than Novell's. Could someone who modded the parent as flamebait explain their reasonimg, please?

Re:Doesn't matter

[Steve Max]

Existing profiles that were using the default (Google) will, by policy, remain using the default (now Yahoo). Ubuntu's policy has always been that: if you changed something we won't touch it, if you are on the default config then the new default will apply.

I'm not sure what would be done if someone explicitly selected Google, though.

Re:Doesn't matter

[Useful Wheat]

The OP has this backwards. The money microsoft is paying for this service doesn't come from thin air. They get paid for each and every search thanks to advertisements. What the OP really should of said is, "Ubuntu users provide revenue to Microsoft."

That's right, you're now supporting microsoft by choosing to not use windows, or internet explorer.

Re:Doesn't matter

[moonbender]

There'll be a lot less Ubuntu users if Canonical doesn't find a way to make money. Besides, there are many, many, many ways to optimise a default Ubuntu install in order to safe users one second. Shaving off a quarter second from the boot time will easily offset the time to change the search engine.

Re:Doesn't matter

[plague3106]

An admin who is worrying about what search engine people are using has too much time on their hands.

Re:Doesn't matter

[sopssa]

This means 5,768,000 users will have to change their setting, meaning nearly TWO MONTHS (66.8 days) of lost time overall.

And creating a new big budget computer game takes 2433 YEARS* (876 000 days) of development time overall.

What is your point?

(*assuming a normal big budget size game development time of 3 years with a team of 100 people)

Re:Doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

The user doesn't have to actually do anything during boot time. Plus it wouldn't be a quarter second, it'd be 0.72seconds.

Re:Doesn't matter

[duguk]

What is your point?

It's an inconvenience to 72% of users.

Re:Doesn't matter

[moonbender]

No, the user doesn't have to do anything -- except wait. Ok, many people do something productive most of the time, but some don't, and even a split second every day will some up to something a lot more than one second once (or even once per update).

Re:Doesn't matter

[ae1294]

bye bye ubuntu. I'm returning to debian.

Right... you run linux but don't know how to change your default search engine? YOU FAIL

Re:Doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

"No longer recommend Ubuntu" does not equal "get people to use Windows," it just means "get people to use RedHat or Debian." I would often rather use Yahoo than Google, but they've violated my don't-sell-out-to-bing rule.

Re:Doesn't matter

[dylan_-]

This means 5,768,000 users will have to change their setting, meaning nearly TWO MONTHS (66.8 days) of lost time overall.

No, this means 5,768,000 users will have to change their setting, meaning ONE SECOND (0.000012 days) of lost time overall.

They don't change the setting one at a time.

Re:Doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

the point is that this distro is no longer going toward being the best of the crop, but is coming to tradeoff to gather money, and this is the wedge of the slippery slope.

every time here everybody is proclaiming to vote with your wallet, and then you come with this bold "you fail" statement?

nice argumentation, however.

Re:Doesn't matter

[Foredecker]

You mean you are looking at Ubuntu. Ubuntu updates and upgrades come from Ubuntu - not Microsoft.

Don't make stuff up....

-Foredecker

Re:Doesn't matter

[Erikderzweite]

I must've gotten confused, thanks for the clarification.

Re:Doesn't matter

[duguk]

No, this means 5,768,000 users will have to change their setting, meaning ONE SECOND (0.000012 days) of lost time overall.

They don't change the setting one at a time.

You work in marketing don't you? =)

Clearly we're talking collectively. I'll admit as a percentage per person this is a very small amount but collectively across all Ubuntu users this accumulates to a lot of wasted time.

At any rate, since it affects the majority of Ubuntu users, this clearly isn't directly for the users benefit.

Re:Doesn't matter

[duguk]

No, the user doesn't have to do anything -- except wait. Ok, many people do something productive most of the time, but some don't, and even a split second every day will some up to something a lot more than one second once (or even once per update).

I think you're missing the point. It still involves the user doing something when before most didn't have to.

It affects the majority of Ubuntu users, so this clearly isn't directly for the users benefit.

Re:Doesn't matter

[jvillain]

What they are doing is pushing aside a company that has done huge things to support Linux and open source in general in favour of a company that is all about closed proprietary formats and killing off Linux. How long till they start to take the money to force Silverlight down your throat as well?

Of course you aren't ever allowed to say any thing wrong about Ubuntu or Canonical after all the times they have virtually claimed to have invented Linux from scratch.

Re:Doesn't matter

[moonbender]

Whatever. It's still one second. It's trivial, it's a non-issue, nobody with any sense cares. Even if it adds up to a big number when you multiply it by 8 million. If it helps Canonical make some money and continue release a great distribution, it's fine. Paying one second, once, is not an unfair price. And those people who don't know how to do it/take more than a second are those people most likely to not care, anyway.

Re:Doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

If it helps Canonical make some money and continue release a great distribution, it's fine.

As GP said, it's not for the users benefit but for Canonical to make money out of changing one packages default settings. You might think it's 'fine' (that's your opinion), but it's definitely not for most users' benefit, and worrying that Microsoft now has a hold on a Linux distro too.

Re:Doesn't matter

[PybusJ]

Yes because it's so much better to get people to use Windows, rather than to get them to use Ubuntu...

I'd venture to suggest that the above AC is proposing to advocate for one of the many Linux distributions that don't have a revenue sharing agreement with Bing, not recommending his friends stay on Windows.

I think I know what you're saying though: I guess you've been putting lots of effort into advocating Ubuntu, and now you feel betrayed?

It is true that Canonical have encouraged an anti-MS attitude within their community. Unlike other distros, bug No 1 in their bug DB makes reference to MS market share.

Personally, I am not too bothered about the default search option (I never liked the search box and usually remove it from my browser profile anyway), but I am increasingly concerned about the gradual pressure that Canonical's extra revenue streams puts on their technical decisions.

They have created their own Ubuntu-branded dropbox-like service (Ubuntu One) and are collecting search share revenue. These things encourage them to make user interface decisions on the user interface which drive people toward revenue generating services rather than for the best technical reasons/user's best interests.

Imagine a future release where the open source version of Chromium provides a clearly better browser than Firefox [I'm only speaking hypothetically, here, Mozilla], would Canonical block a change to the default in Ubuntu as it doesn't generate them Bing revenue. As a user, advocate, and occasional contributor, I'd much prefer these decisions to be entirely technical.

I am somewhat suspicious of this model of making money from associated services rather than support; it's a slippery slope.

Re:Doesn't matter

[icebraining]

Firefox has received money from Google for how much time, now?

I've always preferred Debian over Ubuntu, but I think we should wait to see instead of making unfounded claims about reduced quality.

Re:Doesn't matter

[ae1294]

the point is that this distro is no longer going toward being the best of the crop, but is coming to tradeoff to gather money, and this is the wedge of the slippery slope.

I don't really see it as a slippery slope to trick yahoo into paying money to set the default search engine differently than google was paying them to do. Now if they some how forced you to use yahoo then ok.

Just because it's Linux and open source doesn't mean they aren't allowed to make any money. The question is and always has always been "does it hurt the end user in some way" I, for one, say no... this does not and has not...

every time here everybody is proclaiming to vote with your wallet, and then you come with this bold "you fail" statement?

That's just a saying here on /. that no one ever really does in real life. Yes I used a bold you fail statement because it's linux and if you don't know how to change the default search engine than you have failed. I think that should be very clear to anyone who uses linux. I use SUSE for desktops and Debian for servers right now..

Re:Doesn't matter

[HiThere]

Yahoo may have better privacy policies (at the moment), but what about Bing? It's MS, so I'm not going to bother reading their EULA, I'll just skip using it...because I wouldn't trust whatever it happened to say. I'd expect that somewhere in the small print it allowed them to change the terms without direct notification by altering a web site that it was my responsibility to keep watching.

Re:Doesn't matter

[icebraining]

You're assuming they all care if they're using Google, Bing, Yahoo or Ask Jeeves, and are not using Google just because it was the default.

Re:Doesn't matter

[Jason Earl]

It is in the Ubuntu user's best interest for Canonical to be successful. If Canonical is successful then we can basically rely on a continual string of upgrades for our Ubuntu machines. Switching to another GNU/Linux distribution (or another OS entirely) is going to cost me far more than changing my default search engine.

As far as I am concerned Canonical has just found a way to have Microsoft foot part of the bill for Ubuntu development. Quite frankly, I think that's genius.

Re:Doesn't matter

[icebraining]

Unlike the homepage or shortcuts, the search engine is what brings revenue to Mozilla. Ubuntu is cutting value from Mozilla's Firefox, and driving it to Canonical. That seems a better reason to uphold their trademarks than in Iceweasel case.

Re:Doesn't matter

[Bill_the_Engineer]

What makes Bing, Yahoo, or any other search engine beside Google bad?

I would think that options are good... otherwise we would all be using Windows now.

Re:Doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

You're assuming they all care if they're using Google, Bing, Yahoo or Ask Jeeves, and are not using Google just because it was the default.

Yep, but I'm also discounting those distributions that use the Ubuntu package too.

Re:Doesn't matter

[icebraining]

But it's exactly what Mozilla does now! It get money from Google based on being the default search engine!

What I don't like about this move it's the "dickish" move by Canonical, which is taking Mozilla's value to Google, possibly decreasing it's revenue, to raise their own.

Re:Doesn't matter

[CrazedSanity]

Seriously, it really doesn't. I haven't cared about the default search provider for quite some time, thanks to the use of keywords in Firefox: when I want to search for something on Google, I type "gg something" and I get the results page, which is faster than tabbing or clicking to the search box, and I know where the result will go. Just typing "something" into the browser's URL bar is asking for trouble (assuming you're not being literal.

FYI: to do keyword searching on google, go to a results page, bookmark it, then change everything after the "q=" to "%s", and put "gg" into the Keyword field (you may have to click the "more" button to see it). The URL in my bookmark is "http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%s&btnG=Search"

I've done this with a lot of sites I search on. Dictionary.com (dictionary.reference.com) is "dd", Thesaurus (thesaurus.reference.com) is "tt", Wikipedia is "wiki", and IMDB is "imdb", and AcronymFinder is "ac". Now I don't have to put in a longer search string for definitions, alternative words, wikipedia articles, and whatever. Super fast, very simple.

Re:Doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

There'll be a lot less Ubuntu users if Canonical doesn't find a way to make money.

So? Let them switch to other community-driven distributions, most of which are also able to put out less-buggy releases.

Re:Doesn't matter

[PybusJ]

Ubuntu changed the browser settings and default homepage in previous releases. It used to use Google, but benefiting Canonical rather than Mozilla. This particular change is just getting the kick-backs from a higher payer, I don't think Mozilla were getting any revenue to lose.

Re:Doesn't matter

[ElSupreme]

OMFG is is MSFT!!!! THE are EVILZ!!11!

I won't accpet anything that they do. They are impossible to do anything good!!11!!!
I will keep using Google because they 'do no evil'.

I used to HATE Microsoft. Their products were not the best out there word v word perfect, excel v lotus 123. They used cost manuvers, and rapid improvments to gain insane amounts of market share. But they don't put out 100% bad and evil stuff.

Google isn't all nice and open. Android is 'open' but isn't really. Their Android apps can't be distributed by anyone. Their office/email is so closed they don't even let you run it locally. Sure they use Linux servers, because it is less expensive for them, and they can tivker and optimize for their odd usage. Google only looks open because they don't sell software (when they do it is just as locked down as MSFT), their drafting program. They sell ads, and they give you software so you can see more ads. For all the ad hating that Slashdot has I am amazed with the blind Google love.
Bing and Google have the same notifications for changing their privace policys. Whith the caveat that if anything Material changes BING MUST notify in some way, Google and Yahoo only notify if there are important changes, or start limiting privacy.

http://privacy.microsoft.com/en-us/fullnotice.mspx#EKDAC
http://www.google.com/privacypolicy.html
http://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/details.html

Re:Doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

canonical has made a nice enough job for me to send them a token of appreciation if needed

Re:Doesn't matter

[Kytro]

The biggest issue is that Yahoo / Bing isn't as good a search engine as Google is.

Re:Doesn't matter

[Neoprofin]

I don't know what "it" you're reading or even talking about, but the only person here who pointed out that assumption is me.

Re:Doesn't matter

[md65536]

That's right, you're now supporting microsoft by choosing to not use windows, or internet explorer.

Holy shit! I think I may have called this one, indirectly. Windows 8 to Feature Fully Virtual Monopoly

"The actual operating system of Windows 8 will be provided by other organizations, but it will have exclusive Microsoft branding, including a wide range of monopolistic features."

I wrote it regarding NZ schools still having to pay Microsoft whether they use their software or not, but it applies here as well.

Re:Doesn't matter

[HiThere]

Have you ever READ an MS EULA? (Not that Apple's are any better this year, but MS was the innovator in this field.)

If you've read the EULA and still trust MS with your data, well, it's your neck.

Re:Doesn't matter

[mjwx]

It only takes a couple of clicks to change it to a different engine.

Considering that I already change the page from start.ubuntu.com (or similar) to google.com.au as the default start page tends to give me US results.

Re:Doesn't matter

[twoHats]

,,,plus, i think most Linux users can handle this...

Re:Doesn't matter

[mikechant]

This means 5,768,000 users will have to change their setting, meaning nearly TWO MONTHS (66.8 days) of lost time overall.

You're making the invalid assumption that all those users actually use the 'search box' at all. Many people just have google set as their home page, and click on 'home' on the current or a new tab when they want to search; they will be totally unaffected by this.

Re:Doesn't matter

[mikechant]

The point about the Iceweasel case is that Debian was representing a version of Firefox with code *modfied by them* as Firefox. Trademark law clearly covers this as a case of 'passing off', which is what Trademarks are all about.
In this case Canonical are not modfiying the Firefox code, they are representing Firefox as Firefox. There is *no* trademark case. You can't use your trademarks to stop another company doing "something random you don't like which has nothing to do with Trademarks".

Re:Doesn't matter

[Martin Soto]

Of course you aren't ever allowed to say any thing wrong about Ubuntu or Canonical after all the times they have virtually claimed to have invented Linux from scratch.

[Citation needed]

Re:Doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

So, I exaggerate. It doesn't make my point any less valid.

Re:Doesn't matter

[DaVince21]

Look at it on the bright side: Canonical will be making more money they hopefully "give" back to the community in the form of more development and better support, and MS just keeps doing its business, also gaining some revenue for whatever they're doing.

Both "parties" are making money here, and for some reason that pisses the Linux only/Windows only advocates off.

Re:Doesn't matter

[DragonWriter]

The OP has this backwards. The money microsoft is paying for this service doesn't come from thin air. They get paid for each and every search thanks to advertisements. What the OP really should of said is, "Ubuntu users provide revenue to Microsoft."

That's right, you're now supporting microsoft by choosing to not use windows, or internet explorer.

My most recent Ubuntu install, I used Firefox to download Chrome, and haven't used it much since, and never use the search box in Firefox (I occasionally check out how a page looks in it compared to how it looks in Chrome, so I do occasionally use it.)

So, really, I'm not providing any revenue to Microsoft by using Ubuntu.

Some Ubuntu users probably are, and good for them, and its probably a few more than the ones that would change their default search to Bing if it wasn't the default. Though I suspect not a lot; one of the consequences of Windows near-total dominance is that users of alternative operating systems tend to be more likely to be the kind of people that don't blindly accept defaults -- if they did, they'd probably be using Windows in the first place.

Re:Doesn't matter

[Hyppy]

Image this scenario: Five million people are hired for one hour of simultaneous manual labor. Does it cost you $10, or $50,000,000?

Man hours are multiplicative.

Re:Doesn't matter

[dylan_-]

Image this scenario: Five million people are hired for one hour of simultaneous manual labor. Does it cost you $10, or $50,000,000?

Imagine this scenario: those Five millions people all have to change their Firefox settings, and therefore all actually work 1 hour and 2 seconds. Do you have to pay $50,000,000 or $50,027,777?

Man hours are multiplicative.

Negligible time intervals are negligible.

Worse

[data2]

Great... First they remove gimp and replace it with crap, and then they use an inferior search engine. I mean, it is all configurable, but still, do they want to make it as hard to configure Ubuntu as to configure Windows?

Re:Worse

[socsoc]

They removed GIMP? I'm not surprised, GIMP is overkill for what most people need or can understand. Give an older person Photoshop on Windows and they'll get confused, they need something more basic.

Yahoo search financial decision aside, Ubuntu doesn't want to make it as hard to configure to use as Windows, they want to make it as easy to use for the average joe (not us) to use. The Windows 7 adverts are nailing how easy it is to use and how "I suggested this and they did it!" which is probably what Ubuntu and friends need to respond to.

You or I can always install the packages that interest us, out of the box it'd be easier for my sister if it just worked (which is probably why she has a Mac).

Re:Worse

[poetmatt]

removing gimp isn't a good reason to put mono on ubuntu.

add this revenue sharing (aka yahoo default) and add me to the list of users who isn't using ubuntu anymore. This is dipping their toes way too much into a gray area here.

any other suggestions of equally good linux flavors that don't have mono or the firefox move here?

Re:Worse

[r_jensen11]

I was under the understanding that Gimp is still in the repository, but just not automatically installed.

Evidenced by:
http://packages.ubuntu.com/lucid/graphics/gimp

Re:Worse

[Anonymous Coward]

They removed GIMP? I'm not surprised, GIMP is overkill for what most people need or can understand. Give an older person Photoshop on Windows and they'll get confused, they need something more basic.

No, thiy didn't remove GIMP. The removed GIMP from the default install. It was there in the first place as a sort of show-case of what was available but, being a fairly specialised application, it is now a bit of an anachronism in a basic install.

Re:Worse

[hughperkins]

debian?

But it's very 'raw' I feel, at least, I dabble in using Squeeze (Debian Testing), and there are plenty of bugs that are fixed in Ubuntu, that are still open in Squeeze, at least for me, for example turning off the wifi causes a kernel panic, and it took a while for a kernel to come out that recognized my touchpad.

I'd like to like Squeeze, and when I'm studying for linux exams and stuff, it's exactly what I use, but as soon as I want a system that "just works" I switch back to Ubuntu.

In some ways, it's like Ubuntu is the new Windows for me, in that it's the option that "just works" :-P

Re:Worse

[mcgrew]

do they want to make it as hard to configure Ubuntu as to configure Windows?

I'm happy with Mandriva and haven't tried Ubantu, but isn't Ubantu supposed to be the Linux for Windows users?

Re:Worse

[Anonymous Coward]

"The Windows 7 adverts are nailing how easy it is to use"

Haha ... yea ... I guess marketing worked for them. Whenever I talk to my dad lately, he curses his new Win 7 because it's so much harder to use than Win XP. Loads of error messages, idiotic GUI abstractions, apps no longer work, etc. It's also an abomination to administer because it tries to throw obstacles in your way wherever it can.

Re:Worse

[socsoc]

I don't see how removing gimp and adding mono are related... Can someone explain? Did the gimp replacement require mono?

Re:Worse

[johnnnyboy]

Can I ask you how do you expect Ubuntu to make money?
You think all of this is free and with no cost?
I see this as a good thing. More revenue for Canonical will mean better Ubuntu releases in the future.

Re:Worse

[DrXym]

Gimp was bloated, extremely user unfriendly and is many years overdue for a major usability redesign. If it annoys you THAT MUCH, that it's gone, just install it via aptitude.

Re:Worse

[dushkin]

Have you considered Gubuntu? It's a flavor of Ubuntu that aims at the more Google oriented crowd by changing the default search engine to Google.

Re:Worse

[IANAAC]

The removed GIMP from the default install.

I'll have to go back to a default Ubuntu install I did on another disk, but I can tell you that Easy Peasy (based on Ubuntu NBR) does this and replaces it with... wait for it... Picasa.

That was the first thing to get removed and replaced with Gimp. Gimp really is much lighter on resources than Picasa.

Re:Worse

[jedidiah]

Yes...

They whined about how much space GIMP was taking up only to replace it with something that takes nearly the same amount of space if you include mono dependencies.

Re:Worse

[jedidiah]

Well, that's true and all but that's not the point. Picasa is a more appropriate tool for
the average n00b that wants to futz with a few (or a lot) of photos. It has a good interface
for processing multiple images, a well laid out interface, a reasonably good red-eye tool
and it doesn't try to force a complete separation from the filesystem.

Picasa is something that a Windows user suddenly subjected to MacOS might install in place of iPhoto.

Re:Worse

[jedidiah]

Yet despite all of this: the ordained replacement didn't improve upon any of these alleged failings.

Sure... replace it with something better, not something inferior.

Re:Worse

[macshit]

debian?

But it's very 'raw' I feel, at least, I dabble in using Squeeze (Debian Testing), and there are plenty of bugs that are fixed in Ubuntu

While I'm sure there have been releases where Ubuntu was less buggy than the nearest Debian release, this simply isn't true in general; sometimes Ubuntu releases are better, sometimes they're worse. What Ubuntu does have, though, is more end-user-oriented support, a willingness to throw in some proprietary apps, and great marketing...

Other than those things, though, the Debian and Ubuntu are extremely similar to each other in feel, feature-set, and general robustness (they're far, far, closer to each other than either is to any other linux distro).

Re:Worse

[miknix]

any other suggestions of equally good linux flavors that don't have mono or the firefox move here?

Can't answer the "equally good flavor" for you but, try Gentoo Linux. Just add "-mono" to your global USE flags and you won't be bothered.

Re:Worse

[jackspenn]

I personally prefer Fedora, which gives much more back to the Linux community.

Up next, I really wish Mandrivia was the big boy instead of Ubuntu, it had some really cool and innovative features that made the user experience sweet before Ubuntu even had naked pictures.

It will be interesting to note whether Mint will go with the Ubuntu changes or spin off and avoid them.

Looks like a growing part of Ubuntu's revenue source is "paid" changes/defaults.

Re:Worse

[data2]

That's what I meant.

Re:Worse

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you considered Gubuntu? It's a flavor of Ubuntu that aims at the more Google oriented crowd by changing the default search engine to Google.

That simple post sums up SO MUCH of the FOSS/Linux world...

Re:Worse

[Anonymous Coward]

Use Linux Mint... I hate configuring Linux, and this OS does it the right way (It is based on Ubuntu).

Re:Worse

[imakemusic]

What was it replaced with?

Re:Worse

[Anonymous Coward]

No. GIMP and mono have nothing to do with each other. Gimp was removed from the default installation because it was a complicated application and f-spot (which has been on the CD for about 2 years) has gained a feature for redeye removal and small photo adjustments so that it can cover the majority of use cases. Gimp is of course, still installable with a few clicks.

Somehow this turned into "Ubuntu purging Gimp from the archive to replace it with Mono."

Re:Worse

[poetmatt]

I'm fine with googling answers to crap I don't know. However, is it likely I'll be able to at least run the install with no problems? I mean if I know enough to do some apt-get/sudo stuff, possibly edit the xorg init, am I going to be able to get it running?

Re:Worse

[poetmatt]

umm, fspot uses mono. Mono is equivalent to having .net dependencies on linux, which creates patent issues and other concerns. Does anyone want that in linux? No.

Re:Worse

[poetmatt]

yeah, I tried mandriva when it switched from mandrake, before I ever did ubuntu. Fedora and Gentoo were pretty much what else I was considering. I'll play with all of the above and see, I guess my original presumptions aren't that far off.

Re:Worse

[hughperkins]

I feel Google works significantly better for Ubuntu than for Debian: there's just a much bigger community out there it seems, to me.

Google does kind of work though for Debian I think.

For the installation process, I used debootstrap from my Ubuntu into a new partition, since I don't have a dvd or cd drive... so I can't tell you how well the 'official' installer works.

I think debootstrap was fairly painless for me. These were the instructions I followed:

installing debian using debootstrap.

Generally, I feel if you have a cd player and lack masochistic tendencies that using the official installer is most likely going to be an order of magnitude easier than using debootstrap :-P

Re:Worse

[jedidiah]

f-spot

Re:Worse

[Dragonslicer]

Have you considered Gubuntu? It's a flavor of Ubuntu that aims at the more Google oriented crowd by changing the default search engine to Google.

But I like KDE. Will there be a flavor for me? Gookubuntu?

Re:Worse

[imakemusic]

Correct me if I'm wrong but IIRC f-spot is a photo manager not a photo editor and used to come bundled with Ubuntu along with the Gimp. It's not really surprising that it's a poor replacement seeing as it was never supposed to be a replacement and is a different piece of software with different goals. The Gimp was dropped because most people don't need it. I.e. the functions that the programme provides were deemed to be not needed in a default ubuntu install and were therefore removed (not replaced). If you need the gimp you can still install the gimp, it just takes a couple of extra clicks.

Re:Worse

[DrXym]

Well F-Spot is more usable as an application than the Gimp is even if the functionality is more centred towards photo touch-up than a full blown graphics editor.

I assume that Ubuntu decided this was more suitable as a default application, and people who needed the full blown Gimp could just install it anyway.

Re:Worse

[MrNemesis]

I prefer Foobuntu, which defaults to any search engine, past, present or future, real or imaginary, that you care to mention.

Not to be confused with Fu-bunt-u, a distro dedicated to highly skilled fighting techniques against fungal grass diseases; and F.U.-buntu, which is just a pain to use.

Re:Worse

[metamatic]

Mono is why I switched to Kubuntu and KDE.

Re:Worse

[HiThere]

But it makes it impossible to demo the liveCD. (Well, possible in certain ways, of course, but not to graphics users.)

Was it just removed from the liveCD or was it also removed from the live DVD? (Is there one? If not, why not? If they're so packed for space that they need to remove the Gimp, then they clearly need to move to a DVD.)

(After checking, there clearly is a live DVD. What I can't tell is whether it will include the Gimp. I'm going to presume so, but the only benefit they mention is added language packs.)

Re:Worse

[icebraining]

If you don't want bugs, why are you using Testing instead of, wait for it, Stable?

Testing is in tests! It's in the name! What were you expecting?

Re:Worse

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't believe you totally missed the chance to use an anime reference... "Gokubuntu"

Re:Worse

[Anonymous Coward]

Ubuntu is Debian. In fact, a good deal of work goes into ensuring that packages that work on Ubuntu also work on Debian and vice-versa. Ubuntu is just a thin layer of candy-coating to make Debian more palatable.

But this isn't to say this is all that Cannonical has done: they have and continue to make significant contributions to Debian proper that benefit all of the Debian community, both Ubuntu and non-Ubuntu.

Re:Worse

[GameboyRMH]

Or you could switch to Eye of Gnome (probably already on there) and remove F-spot and Mono instead of changing your whole distro.

Re:Worse

[hughperkins]

You think the older version is likely to support my newer hardware?

I guess I also feel that Ubuntu seems not only to have fewer bugs (eg wifi and my mousepad support), but also to be using newer versions of the software.

I also liked that it automatically moves me to what it feels to be the cutting edge software - eg grub 2 - without my having to do the research myself to figure out what the latest software is. It just appears, and then I do the research to figure out how to use it.

There are some more controversial decisions occasionally - pulseaudio I'm looking at you - but on the whole, I'm quite happy with Ubuntu forging ahead and pushing the latest and greatest softwares onto my desktop.

I felt that Squeeze was actually older than Ubuntu and more buggy...

The good thing about Squeeze was it made me feel somehow 'clean' and that felt good, but it didn't quite make up for the ease of use for Ubuntu. Not for me. Not quite.

Now there is a new kernel out for Squeeze, and it does support my mousepad, and I'm in the middle of investigating whether it supports my wifi, so who knows? I'm actually typing this from Squeeze whilst I download the latest updates, so who knows?

Re:Worse

[icebraining]

You can use Stable and a backported kernel.

The Debian actual release is Stable. Everything else is not supported; Testing is not a "newer version", it's more like a development tree (well, less than Unstable, but even so).

Ubuntu simply had a different philosophy than Debian; they are willing to risk some stability (compared to Stable, not Testing!) for newer packages.

But using Squeeze now is ok - it'll probably go "freeze" in March, and then be released, so it's almost Stable. But remember to keep "squeeze" and not "testing" in sources.list when the release happens, or else you'll use the "new" testing, which will start to receives packages from Unstable.

Re:Worse

[hughperkins]

Some specific things I like about Ubuntu Karmic compared to Debian Squeeze:

- supports AppArmor (I feel naked surfing without it... and I haven't had time to learn selinux yet)

- python is 2.6, instead of 2.5 (might have changed now; I was dabbling a month or two ago)

- touchpad works, (fixed in latest 2.6.32 kernel, but didn't work a month or two ago; maybe the backported kernel would have worked, it's possible)

Re:Worse

[aqk]

I've never used Photoshop in any great measure. But I've had several "free" install discs for 90-day versions of it.
F U ADOBE.
I grew up (well at least in the last 15 years or so ) with, originally the free Paintshop, and then the $39 Paintshop 7.04 which I now use.
That is, sometimes - When I cannot do what I want to do in Irfanview.
Paintshop 7.04 works rather well in Windows 7 compatibility mode.
The latest GIMP is a dog. Takes forever to load.
Every so often I get the urge to upgrade my old Paintshop 7.04 to the latest (is it Corel?) version but they want $xxx - Who cares.

Most of the time I just use Irfan's Irfanview.
If you are a graphic artist, fine. Get Adobe's Photo$hop. Otherwise Irfaview or the old Paintshow are more than you'll ever need. And FAR superior to the latest GIMP.
My two cents.

Re:Worse

[data2]

Well, we are talking about the default install. So it is already on the dvds or the server you use to install and everything. Also, I prefer the minimal style, which is probably just my point. Rather add later on than remove.

Re:Worse

[icebraining]

Well, Novell has fired the developers of AppArmor in 2007.. From what I understood the project is more or less dead, and never reached a really useful state compared to other alternatives, and distros have been keeping it in "maintenance state".

Yes, python is still at 2.5, which is annoying (2.6 is available, but the python libraries aren't). From what I've read they're having problems with the python package maintainer.

Yes, touchpad should have worked with the backported kernel.

Re:Worse

[Anonymous Coward]

They already had Mono installed anyway for F-Spot and Tomboy. Hang on, isn't F-Spot the proposed replacement for the GIMP for photo editing, so the replacement is something they already include in Ubuntu. So the replacement to the GIMP isn't really a replacement, as they aren't adding anything new in place of the GIMP, so I don't see why F-Spot + Mono using up nearly as much disk space as the GIMP is relevant.

Re:Worse

[Simian Man]

Fedora. It doesn't include Mono, has a normal Firefox and is much better than Ubuntu in most ways I can think of. Plus Red Hat is committed to Open Source while Canonical isn't.

Re:Worse

[jedidiah]

So quick edits of photos and other images aren't needed?

This is what Gimp provides that F-spot does not despite the fact that there is an f-spot viewer (it's just crippled).

As a "photo manager" F-spot is inferior to just about any other option. An "image editor for n00bs" or a photo manager should be something that anyone can quickly pick up and get the feeling that is at least as efficient as what they've used before. F-spot fails in this respect.

A good "photo manager" should make you think: "where have you been all my life". Not Ew!

icrosoft will be paying people for using Ubuntu.

[jkrise]

Wow!! Amazing.. just the very thought! Long may it continue...

Great gauge

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems like a decent way for MS to track Ubuntu's growth.

Re:Great gauge

[ais523]

Microsoft probably have more accurate figures than anyone else for how many PCs exist, and how many of them run Windows. Given that Mac OS X is unlikely to be run on PCs (at least not legally, and mostly not at all), and other OSes are even smaller than Linux is, you can conclude that most of the difference run a Linux-based OS; and therefore, Microsoft probably have more accurate figures of the installbase of Linux than anyone else at the moment.

Microsoft Paying for Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Seeing Microsoft pay for people to use Linux has got to be the greatest irony I have seen all week. It makes me smile. :)
Definitely first post worthy.

Delicious!

[headkase]

Microsoft paying when people use Ubuntu! Oooooh, my morning just became deliciously enriched. *Thank you* slashdot, these are the moments I know why I come here! =D

Re:Delicious!

[Anonymous Coward]

"Microsoft Gains Access To Linux User Internet Behaviour"

What? No longer smiling? How come? ;)

Guess it's time to move on to another distribution. They were moving away from too many apps I use anyway. Once they get involved in these kind of corporate politics, it's high time to say goodbye.

Re:Delicious!

[shutdown -p now]

Microsoft paying when people use Ubuntu!

Technically, it would be Yahoo, no?

In any case, this isn't really new. For example, Opera switched the default search engine from Google to Yahoo a few years ago. To remind, Opera was the company that initiated anti-trust investigation regarding IE in EU, which resulted in record fines for Microsoft...

I suspect the only thing there is to this is that Yahoo pays more than Google for this kind of exposure. I doubt MS is involved in any way, actually - Yahoo was already paid for switching to Bing backend back when it happened.

Question

[mewsenews]

Does this affect the Ubuntu - Firefox deal? Debian's version of Firefox is named Iceweasel because Debian legal felt that the Firefox branding was too encumbered to users wishing to redistribute, but Ubuntu reached some sort of compromise that allowed them to keep the Firefox branding.

Will screwing with Firefox's default search affect Ubuntu's relationship with Firefox? I'm expecting "no" but wondering if anyone is able to explain why.

Re:Question

[plague911]

Well amongst several things. Yahoo/Microsoft is no more or less open source than Google. So the change should um make a total of "0" difference...

Re:Question

[NorbrookC]

I doubt it. Firefox has always given users the ability to change the default search engine. While Google was paying Mozilla to make Google the default search on those products, it doesn't necessarily affect other deals made.

This is interesting, but I don't think it's all that big a problem. Although it's fun to get all paranoid about Microsoft - with some justification - I don't see this as an attempt to "take over" Ubuntu.

Re:Question

[moonbender]

Firefox has a revenue sharing deal with Google. However, I don't know if the searches generated by an Ubuntu Firefox were part of this deal, since Ubuntu ALSO has one (which is now being replaced) and a Google search from the Ubuntu Firefox contains an URL parameter "rls=com.ubuntu:en-US:official." If Mozilla didn't get any money from Ubuntu searches in the first place, I don't see why this would affect anything.

I think the Debian/Iceweasel thing was a Debian issue rather than a Mozilla issue; they could have had the Firefox name, but Debian will not distribute encumbered IP (good for them!). I can't imagine that the deal with Google limits Mozilla in what they can do with their trademarks. On a sidenote, the deal runs out in November 2011, who knows what the default search provider in a stock Firefox will be at that point.

Re:Question

[socsoc]

I'm confused. I thought it was named Iceweasel because Mozilla told Debian that they couldn't redistribute a non-official binary and use the logo and name it Firefox.

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is the branded versions of Firefox aren't quite open either. You can see/modify the code (except the bug reporter in older versions), but if you do something Mozilla Corp/Org doesn't like, they can force you to not distribute their branding (that's why debian has iceweasel).

Re:Question

[mejogid]

Canonical brokered a compromise with Mozilla, something about authorising their patchset, whereby they were also allowed to keep the branding. However, if a user makes further changes to Firefox and distributes it they would have to remove the branding. These terms were unacceptable to Debian but Canonical decided it was worth it to draw new users with the Firefox brand.

Re:Question

[AlgorithMan]

iirc Debian changed the name and icon of firefox to iceweasel, because Mozilla told people to not change the icon when redistributing altered versions... Debian is quite strict about free software and that demand violates the 4 essential freedoms (even if it violates them only peripherally), so they forked firefox...

otoh they keep up with the versions - it seems they fork every version again or so - i don't know...

Re:Question

[socsoc]

Ah, thank you sir.

Re:Question

[tepples]

Microsoft is no more or less open source than Google.

Chrome has a substantial Free version without the patented parts. IE doesn't.

Re:Question

[Rogerborg]

Not quite. It was actually more like this:

• Mozilla: Hey, dudes, all you have to do is to ask "Can we use your trademarks on our modified distribution?. It'll totally won't be a problem for you guys, we're cool with you. Love your work!
• Debianz: Graaaaaaaaaaaaaah!
• Mozilla: Errr....?
• Debianz: RAAAAAAH GRAAARRRRRR! AAAARRGH! RRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRR!

You know, just so we're clear.

Re:Question

[robmv]

It is not a fork it is just upstream Firefox + patches build with options to use an alternative branding

Re:Question

[petermgreen]

I think the Debian/Iceweasel thing was a Debian issue rather than a Mozilla issue; they could have had the Firefox name,
My understanding is they could but only if they

1: took the firefox branding (which was an issue due to the fact it's not available under a free license)
2: gave mozilla veto power on patches (including security updates)

Re:Question

[jellomizer]

Well Debian goal is to be Pure GNU at all costs even if it effects the end user. That is why they made the Iceweasel name. As they feel because the trademark firefox name makes it unpure.

Ubutnu is a bit lax on this and its goal is to be more focused on its users, and less on being Pure... Hence it allows you to install off of apt the "Non-Free" code, after giving a scary lecture to make people who say yes feel like evil criminals. But in terms of Firefox they are ok with using the trademark. Changing the defualt search is a configuration change not changing firefox so I dont think they would have a real issue with it.

Re:Question

[petermgreen]

Did you actually read the mailing list threads in question?

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it doesn't (this question was also asked on the Ubuntu developer mailing lists, which I subscribe to).

Mozilla was aware that this change was going to occur before it did and seems to be fine with it. Ubuntu is still very beneficial for Firefox (simply by having it as the default browser).

Re:Question

[petermgreen]

Debian has had realtively large patchsets for mozilla software for a long time for various reasons. The branding changes are just one more relatively trivial change to forward port (and don't forget that there would have been branding changes before since the combination of firefox name and free icons wasn't supported by the standard build process).

Re:Question

[Kjella]

Almost right, but also that Debian themselves could not update a Firefox-branded browser without getting permission from Mozilla first. I think particularly the security team had a problem with that.

Re:Question

[Minwee]

Then again, it may have gone something like this:

• Mozilla: Listen carefully, Debian. Mozilla controls everything it rests its eyes upon. It holds a trademark so massive it shakes the ground with its registration, so vast it drinks the coke machine dry. All the God-King Mozilla requires is this: a simple offering of signing an agreement. A token of Debian's submission to the trademark on the Firefox name.
• Debian: Submission. Well, that's a bit of a problem. See, rumor has it that signing an agreement with Mozilla means that we would no longer be able to make changes to the version of Firefox we distribute and that clearly violates both our Social Contract and the Free Software Guidelines.
• Debian: And of course Debian... has its reputation to consider.

But I wasn't there so I don't know either. It's entirely possible that the whole event was just a simple adjustment meant to reconcile two conflicting requirements -- That Debian software remain unquestionably Free and that the Mozilla group retain control over the Firefox, Thunderbird, SeaMonkey and SunBird trademarks so as to ensure the high quality of software distributed under their names. But then it wouldn't be nearly as exciting to watch and people would get bored.

It's much more fun to imagine that license discussions were conducted while all parties had their shirts off and were threatening one another with giant Q-Tips while the Star Trek fight music played in the background.

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

The issue is that, while you can do so with permission, Debian policy is to use only "free software" and the requirement of getting a (revokable) permission is deemed (by the same policy) "non-free" - perhaps reasonably, perhaps not.

Ultimately, though, who really cares? Typing "firefox" still works, "iceweasel" is kinda cute, everyone understands that it's still the same web browser, and my computer gains a Matt Groening reference.

Re:Question

[rcarroll215]

5 minutes later and I'm still laughing at this.

Re:Question

[deadsquid]

No, it will not. Without re-hashing too much, the Debian case was different, in that the changes involved incorporating software patches (code) that had not been reviewed and accepted into the Mozilla code base, and the maintainers wanted to be able to include those patches at their discretion, independent of Mozilla's review and approval process. The Ubuntu change is a configuration change, where the default Yahoo! open search plugin and the default search order will be changed, but the application executable will not. Canonical/Ubuntu, as stated in the comment above, does have a distribution agreement in place with Mozilla. Part of that agreement is that any changes to code and/or config that differs from the default will be reviewed by Mozilla, and will not be included in a Firefox-branded product without Mozilla's permission (http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/trademarks/policy.html). Canonical believes this change is in the best interests of sustaining the Ubuntu project, and Mozilla has given permission for that change to be made.

Re:Question

[Noughmad]

The search engines themselves are all proprietary, but as a company Google is certainly the more open-source-friendly. They give $5M/year to open source projects via the Google Summer of Code.

Re:Question

[Trepidity]

Debian actually wanted to: 1) use the trademarked name; but 2) not use the logo. Mozilla said yes to that some years back, but under new management gave a flat no: it was use the whole branding package or not at all.

Re:Question

[swillden]

Funny, but for anyone who wants to really understand the issue, it's much more nuanced and more sensible than that.

Mozilla told Debian that Debian could not distributed modified versions of Firefox with the Mozilla trademarked names and images. Debian developers habitually patch upstream software in various ways to make it fit into the Debian system better, to fix bugs, etc. One solution would have been for Debian to ship only the exact versions released by Mozilla. Another solution would have been for Debian to get Mozilla to approve each modified version that Debian wanted to release. A pain, but doable.

However, the discussion highlighted another, deeper problem: If Debian can't modify FF and redistribute the result without infringing on Mozilla's trademarks, that means neither can anyone else. Under Debian's Free Software guidelines, it must be possible for users of Debian to modify and redistribute software at will, [i]without[/i] needing to acquire any additional permissions, or else the software is non-free. That meant that FF is non-free software.

That's not a huge problem; Debian distributes lots of non-free software. So a solution to the problem might have been to get Mozilla's permission to distribute the modifications, and then put FF in the non-free repository. Per the Debian Social Contract, however, non-free software cannot be essential to the operation of the system. So FF couldn't be the default browser on the system.

But Debian [i]wanted[/i] FF to be the default browser, and so did Mozilla. It's a fine browser, perhaps even the best around, free, non-free or proprietary. And Debian really didn't have another good option -- Seamonkey is in the same boat, Dillo sucked, Konqueror is tied to KDE, etc.

Debian's other option, obviously, was to simply ignore their own rules, and ship non-free software as a core system component. That would have been a huge compromise to their principles, and would have opened up all sorts of questions about why *other* non-free software couldn't be in the base system as well. Big can of worms there.

So, what Debian did was to recognize that it was only the trademarked names and artwork which were non-free. The code was under the MPL, which is a Free Software license. Their best option, then, was to distributed the code without the trademarks. Iceweasel, Icedove, etc. are Free Software, per Debian's guidelines, but they have all the functionality of the Mozilla products, and are fully compatible with them.

It wasn't a perfect solution, but it was the best available.

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

One of Debian's tenets is that anyone should be able to take Debian, modify it, and re-distribute it under the same terms as Debian itself. This makes things like the Ubuntu project possible.

Mozilla won't grant them a license to use their trademarks under these terms -- they will let Debian use the trademarks for Debian itself, but won't allow it to pass on those rights to users. As a result, Debian was forced to change the branding.

Re:Question

[swillden]

Well Debian goal is to be Pure GNU at all costs even if it effects the end user. That is why they made the Iceweasel name. As they feel because the trademark firefox name makes it unpure.

More precisely, Debian's goal is that their core system, including the desktop and the default applications, should be Free Software (which is not the same as GNU software).

Mozilla's enforcement of trademarks on the Firefox name and artwork make the software non-free, in the sense that it is not legal for anyone to modify and redistribute the software at will. Anyone who wants to distribute unmodified copies of FF may do so. Anyone who wants to distribute modified versions must get permission from Mozilla, otherwise they're infringing Mozilla's trademarks.

Iceweasel does not use any Mozilla trademarks, so anyone can modify and redistribute it to their heart's content, without getting permission from anyone (though they still have to comply with Mozilla's license). So, Iceweasel is Free Software, and can therefore be included in the core Debian system.

Ubutnu is a bit lax on this and its goal is to be more focused on its users, and less on being Pure... Hence it allows you to install off of apt the "Non-Free" code, after giving a scary lecture to make people who say yes feel like evil criminals.

"Non-Free" is the wrong term here; what you mean is "Restricted". Restricted software is software that may be illegal to use in some jurisdictions. Non-free software is legal to use, but may be illegal to modify and redistribute. Ubuntu uses non-free software wherever they think it makes sense, and without any end-user warning. Ubuntu uses restricted software where necessary, and gives you the scary warnings because you may, in fact, be breaking the law.

In contrast, Debian excludes non-free software from the core system (but puts it in the non-free repository, if you want it) and does not distribute restricted software at all.

Re:Question

[swillden]

But Debian [i]wanted[/i] FF to be the default browser

Doh! Too much time on BBCode-using forums lately! Never have figured out why they don't just all use HTML syntax <grumble/>

Re:Question

[Bill_the_Engineer]

I think he meant the actual search service, not the other software products.

Besides not all Google products are open sourced (free != open source).

Re:Question

[Rich0]

Canonical could just take a page from the Gentoo playbook and not redistribute modified firefox binaries at all.

Go ahead and install a pristine copy of firefox. Then, have the package manager modify the configuration. They haven't redistributed any modified files (just the originals plus patches they own), so they don't need a redistribution license. Granted, if they do patch the binaries they need to stay on Mozilla's good side since redistributing modified binaries does require a license, and Mozilla could probably get upset about the one and revoke their right to do the other.

Gentoo bypasses all of this by not redistributing any modified sources. They either mirror the upstream sources as-is, or they don't mirror them and have the user download them directly (automatically). Then they patch the source on the user's machine and build it. The resulting binaries cannot be legally redistributed by the end-user, unless they select the option to remove the Mozilla branding.

Re:Question

[shutdown -p now]

Well Debian goal is to be Pure GNU at all costs even if it effects the end user.

No, Debian goal is to be pure Free Software in the core system. This doesn't necessarily mean GNU - BSDL is also Free, for example, but some GNU licenses (such as GFLD) aren't Free enough for Debian. Furthermore, there's also the official non-free repository, where such stuff can (and does) go. It just can't be present in the default, out-of-the-box install.

Re:Question

[Kjella]

Never have figured out why they don't just all use HTML syntax <grumble/>

You first, or did you mean XHTML?

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

And that proves what?

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

The big problem with all of this is that Mozilla doesn't approve every patch that goes in to make Firefox work on a system. FreeBSD has many patches that are needed to make Firefox work as intended and there are no such Trademark issues.

The problem was specifically that Debian was changing/adding features, which opens the door for Mozilla to get bug reports for things which are specifically not in their product. Mozilla simply said, if it's not our product, you cannot brand it as such. Debian balked, obfuscated the issue behind the "social contract". It really just came down to doing things the right way, push new features upstream during the development cycle instead of bolting it onto a release.

Re:Question

[swillden]

Whoosh!

It has nothing to do with the changes Debian was making. That just provoked the conversation and led to the discovery of the REAL issue: Mozilla does not allow redistribution of modified software under its brand.

That makes it non-free, per Debian's guidelines, which makes it unacceptable for inclusion in the base system, per Debian's Social Contract (no need for scare quotes; the social contract isn't notional, it's thoroughly documented).

Re:Question

[swillden]

Never have figured out why they don't just all use HTML syntax <grumble/>

You first, or did you mean XHTML?

Distinction without a difference, with respect to the <i> tag.

Re:Question

[mopflite]

Quite. In fact, the first thing that I always do after installing Firefox is to set http://www.google.co.uk/ as my homepage, I then carry out all searches (unless for some reason I make a deliberate choice to carry out a search using a different search engine) from there.

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Their patching is a little aggressive for my tastes. I tried plait on Ubuntu 9.10, and it failed with a SYNTAX ERROR! Seriously, did no one actually run the stinking thing after their merry little trip to patch city?

Now, plait is happy, but come on people.

Semantics

[Bicx]

So by "revenue sharing," this guy really means "Yahoo! is shoveling over the cash for a minor feature change on Ubuntu."

Re:Semantics

[dkleinsc]

Or alternately, "selling access to our user base to a corporation". I can guarantee you that's how Yahoo management is thinking about it.

Frankly, this was not what I signed up for when I used Ubuntu to create a largely MS-free environment at home. If need be, I'll roll my own desktop Linux to keep out of this sort of thing. I'm happy to donate time and cash to worthwhile projects, but not if they're going to turn around and get corporate sponsorship.

Re:Semantics

[mejogid]

Or you could make *two clicks* and change it back. This is a significant opportunity for Canonical to become profitable and could potentially see a minor, insignificant revenue increase for MS. If they were dealing directly with MS you could argue they're asking to be screwed, but with Bing/Windows on the one side and Google/Chrome OS/Android on the other Yahoo appears to be the least self-sabotaging search engine at the moment. Particularly with Chrome OS, Google is looking to make the desktop ecosystem on which Canonical depends an irrelevant commodity in the face of a closed, in-the-cloud system.

If you'd rather use Google then take the two clicks to change it, but don't act as if you're making an ethical stance against corporatism. Google's end goal is you being locked into their webapps, just as MS' end goal is you being locked into their OS and apps.

Re:Semantics

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, Ubuntu is a corporate Linux distro, backed by a single corporation. Linux itself is mostly written by developers paid by corporations. Even Debian relies on donations, mostly from corporations. Corporate sponsorship is a major part of the basis of open source and to a slightly lesser extent, the free software movement.

Re:Semantics

[maxume]

Ubuntu has always had corporate sponsorship.

Re:Semantics

[Yvanhoe]

Yeah, Ubuntu has always been a "compromise" with the world of proprietary software and the "regular" software businesses. It accepted to make easy integration with proprietary drivers, with flash plugins, etc... This is one more little modification that will make them profitable. People have all the right to protest about this practice and switch to Debian.
Ubuntu has no lock-ins. It provides an easy-to-use system at the cost of compromising certain principles. Everyone place his one's bar where he sees fit.

Re:Semantics

[snadrus]

Open source is made in few ways:
- Corporate Sponsorship
- Independent contributions
- Support Contracts

It appears corporate sponsorship and corporate contributions are the most effective.

Re:Semantics

[Anonymous Coward]

i'll use yahoo if my evey search brings needed cash to canonical

Re:Semantics

[marcosdumay]

Google has no lucrative motive for sabotating Linux. If anything, Chrome OS is another distro that tries to reach the masses because everybody else is doing it wrong, just like Ubuntu. They'll really like if Linux gets to the masses, being it Suse, Ubuntu or Chrome.

That said, that is a pretty good move of Canonical. You have no bargaining power on your default engine if everybody belives you are philosophicaly tied to Google. That will open this market for other comercial distros getting similar deals, and will make them more lucrative.

Re:Semantics

[jim_v2000]

I don't know if you realized this, but Canonical, the company behind Ubuntu, is a corporation. So really, your problem here is that Microsoft is involved. Let's not pretend that you have some sort of problem with corporate sponsorship.

Embrace, Extend ... Extinguish

[ausoleil]

If someone thinks that Microsoft has changed their stripes, they are being foolish.

In 1996, John Markoff said, "Rather than merely embrace and extend the Internet, the company's critics now fear, Microsoft intends to engulf it." Bing and putting Bing everywhere, including a major Linux distro is just a continuation of that strategy.

In other words, this is just more of the same for a company trying to leverage the Internet and in their most grandiose scheme, somehow come to dominate it.

Re:Embrace, Extend ... Extinguish

[n2art2]

So you mean to tell me that a business has an agenda? And that agenda is to make money? Wow, I need to sit down.

Re:Embrace, Extend ... Extinguish

[Nerdfest]

Making money doesn't need to be the only agenda of a business, although it needs to be damn close to the top of the list.

Re:Embrace, Extend ... Extinguish

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember, at one point in the 90's, Microsoft made the claim that they were entitled to a cut of every transaction that took place on the web - not because they'd done anything to deserve it, but just because they could. They're getting closer to this every day. A newer, more insidious, but very, very profitable Microsoft tax.

Re:Embrace, Extend ... Extinguish

[tehcyder]

I think Microsoft have left it a bit late to dominate the internet, never mind engulfing or extinguishing it.

The search box in Mozilla is named "Chrome"?!

[MustardAndPizza]

I wonder whose brilliant idea that was.

----
My signature fell down and can't get up.

ick

[Anonymous Coward]

Selling out a technical decision (which search engine should be the default) to the highest bidder is kind of a shitty move. Does anyone really think Yahoo is the best choice? Probably not. So they've slightly worsened their user experience in exchange for some cash. Not a great precedent.

open source funded by closed source

[v(*_*)vvvv]

Products don't magically sell themselves and make their creators wealthy or even put bread on the table - the lesson of open source.

But if the ultimate goal of the open source movement is to eventually overtake closed source software, this is damning evidence such a scenario will never happen. At the end of the day, closed source is funding much of the open source initiatives. One could say this also includes those of us working closed source jobs by day and open source projects by night.

Re:open source funded by closed source

[Anonymous Coward]

> closed source is funding much of the open source initiatives

Give me one example of that "closed source". Yahoo doesn't count, it's not a program.

Re:open source funded by closed source

[snadrus]

nah, if open source ran 90% of the worlds computers, peer possibilities would solve distribution issues. As for improvements, there would be too many incoming patches to manage in most of the current ways.
And if every corporate IT department managed open source programs, feature requests would be *more* common as users would know they had a good chance of being heard.
maybe

Re:open source funded by closed source

[quantaman]

Actually this means advertising is funding open source, which is fine with me.

If MS/Yahoo offer a service to Ubuntu users, and both parties benefit from that arrangement, than I don't really see a big problem here.

What a dilemma...

[argent]

Given the way they would have to track this, I suspect Ubuntu only gets money when you actually USE it.

If you switch the search back to Google, Ubuntu won't get paid.

If you don't, you have to actually use Bing.

What a dilemma.

Re:What a dilemma...

[Ant P.]

Seems like a clever move. Ubuntu turns their ignorant users into a profit source. It certainly doesn't have a shortage of them...

wrong summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell, I'd install Ubuntu in a fucking VM and let it spin overnight if it won me a check from Microsoft the next morning. What, I can't do that?

No, Microsoft is paying Canonical for people using Yahoo. End users don't see any money.

It was nice while it lasted

[paulzeye]

I've used Ubuntu for a few years now and always though it was great. Using a clearly inferior search engine as a default is pretty bogus. I guess I'll just go back to using Debian. Can't say I blame them though they need to make money somewhere.

Re:It was nice while it lasted

[i_want_you_to_throw_]

I've used Ubuntu for a few years now and always though it was great. Using a clearly inferior search engine as a default is pretty bogus. I guess I'll just go back to using Debian. Can't say I blame them though they need to make money somewhere.

So if I have this straight you think Ubuntu is great and now you're going to Debian because you're too lazy to switch the default search engine? Your nerd-fu is weak.

Re:It was nice while it lasted

[InEnacWeTrust]

... instead of which you could juste as easily make those 2 clicks and change the default back to google. ... or maybe you believe it easier to install Debian than to click twice ?

Re:It was nice while it lasted

[kangsterizer]

clearly the poster is one of these 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000 humans who don't have any idea of what they're doing or why they're even living in this world;
let me explain. he's not using ubuntu because it's good, or easy, or whatever. nope.
he's using ubuntu because people said it's cool. he doesn't care if its good or not, and worse, doesn't even realize it himself.
having yahoo default deal makes it uncool (because, google is cool, yahoo is uncool)
then he has no choice, but to dump ubuntu

stupid, retarded, but true. and it happens for a million of other things that have no relation to linux or computers, every day, all the time.

i for one welcome the retarded sheep human society.

Re:It was nice while it lasted

[paulzeye]

Not really laziness, it just feels like it is turning into a crappier product so I don't want to use it anymore. Changing the default search engine seems like it would be the lazier route. Sure I have the ability to choose which search provider I use, but I also have the ability to choose which distro I use.

Re:It was nice while it lasted

[Anonymous Coward]

So instead of spending a few seconds to change the default search engine in Firefox, you're going to spend hours installed a new distribution. That makes a lot of sense.

In Soviet Yahoo ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... Ubuntu's default browser is Lynx!

Re:Next step:

[miknix]

1) Yahoo scans for "Ubuntu|Linux" in the user-agent.
2) Ubuntu user's internet experience is "improved" by presenting Microsoft solutions first, in the search results.
3) ??
4) Profit!

Please implement it better than Linux Mint!

[Ezel]

I hope their solution is better than what the Linux Mint distribution does. The Google-results from the Mint-search is really poor compared to Firefox-search. And also the way they have implemented their Mint-search makes it almost as hard to go back to Normal-Firefox-search as deleting spyware in Windows. Just take a look at the instructions below. Might not be that hard for Linux-pros, but it's way harder than what the Firefox-crew meant it to be:
http://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.php?f=42&t=39623

Re:Please implement it better than Linux Mint!

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

That's a bit misleading -- as this is how to completely remove it from the distribution. You could also just add a google search provider in the standard way; or even shortcut keyword to google search which you can type into the address bar.

Wow...

[Anonymous Coward]

That is some seriously fucked up shit. The beginning of the end. Before you know it they will start shipping "IE for Ubuntu". Ridiculous. Canonical should be truly ashamed. I understand people have to eat, but this is crossing the line.

Re:Wow...

[SteveFoerster]

If it meant Canonical got a big fat check, I'd *want* then to install "IE for Linux".

I mean come on, people, does it really take an unusual amount of vision to prefer a sustainable Ubuntu that's 98% perfect on install rather than one that can't sustain itself that is 100% perfect? Especially when we're only talking about defaults which can be easily changed?

Re:Wow...

[orasio]

Freedom is somewhat like virginity. 98% free is not free.

Re:Wow...

[SteveFoerster]

I know you wanted to sound witty, but freedom actually isn't anything like virginity. If it were, then being 98% free would be no different than being completely unfree, and I don't think anyone could reasonably argue that's so.

That said, I'll backtrack a little. I can see how having unfree software in the default install would be too polarizing to make whatever gain would result be worth it. But that doesn't apply to switching default search providers from Google to Yahoo, though.

Google stole the name

[ThrowAwaySociety]

"Chrome" has long been the term for the browser's UI...the toolbars, status bars, and such that surround the content.

Google calling its browser "Chrome(tm)" would be like calling an operating system "Windows(tm)."

Re:Google stole the name

[10101001 10101001]

Google calling its browser "Chrome(tm)" would be like calling an operating system "Windows(tm)."

More like, 'Google calling its browser "Chrome(tm)" would be like calling a windows based GUI "Windows(tm)."' But, then, you'd have 'Google calling its browser based OS "Chrome OS(tm)" would be like calling a windows based OS "Windows OS".

Re:Google stole the name

[cbhacking]

A good random example of this:

http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Test/CSS1/current/sec5526c.gif (Reference image for the Acid 1 test.)

This test is quite old - HTML 4 and CSS1 - and the window border (which you'll note they refer to as "generic chrome") shows this fairly clearly. It far predates both Firefox and Chrome (browser).

As a side note, when Windows first came out, it wasn't really an OS; it was little more than a window manager and an API. While definitely not the first graphical computer operating environment, it's entirely possible that the concept of a "window" in the software world wasn't really established yet, assuming it even existed. Maybe it was (how old is the concept of a "window manager"?) but in any case, it was a program that allowed one to graphically view multiple running programs, each in their own "window" on your display. Microsoft's naming has historically been very unimaginative, but I suspect that the name of the Windows operating system is a legacy thing, from the days when it was little more than (for example) KWin (KDE's window manager).

Re:Google stole the name

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it's a good thing nobody ever did THAT.

Seriously, it's Windows(R).

Re:Google stole the name

[HiThere]

No, before the time MSWindows first came out, the term "window" was already used to denote a particular area of the screen that was a "window" into the execution of some program, e.g. a word processor. I think it was used in curses though I'm not sure. It was definitely used with GEM. I'm not totally sure that the Mac used that term, though. (I rather think it did, but too much of using the Mac is stored in my mind for the period 1984-1995, and it tends to leak into areas where it's inappropriate. The term existed, and I used it to refer to Mac things, but I can't be sure that others did.)

Remember that MSWind wasn't released until 1995, while the Mac dated from 1984. And, of course, the Xerox PARC computers pre-dated the Mac. And the Xerox PARC computers were described as "graphics windowing systems", so I'm rather certain that those who worked with them called the designated screen segments "windows".

Re:Google stole the name

[jonaskoelker]

Google calling its browser "Chrome(tm)" would be like calling an operating system "Windows(tm)."

Or calling a (virtual or physical) lisp machine "Emacs(tm)" ;-)

Re:Google stole the name

[BitZtream]

Before working with the mozilla code, Chrome was a metal to me, like almost everyone else. Its bling bling.

Before Mozilla I'd refer to the 'chrome' as the 'skin' or 'theme'.

But lets go with the Mozilla usage of the word.

What is Chrome the web browser? Its a skin around WebKit ... It is a chrome for webkit ... Seems rather fitting.

Re:Google stole the name

[Anonymous Coward]

Released in 1995? I think you mean 1985. And the name was allegedly used back in 1983.

might be good, I guess...

[correnos]

I realize that Canonical needs money and this deal would get them some, but this is still sort of sad in that it's giving M$, the biggest competitor of... any OS really, more money. Also, Google has served Firefox and Ubuntu quite well in the past, so I'm having a hard time figuring out how this serves Canonical well in the end.

Microsoft will be paying people for using Ubuntu?

[clone53421]

Dear Friends; Please do not take this for a junk letter. Bill Gates sharing his fortune. If you ignore this, You will repent later. Microsoft and Google are now the largest Internet companies and in an effort to make sure that Bing remains the most widely used internet search engine, Microsoft and Ubuntu are running an e-mail beta test.

When you forward this e-mail to friends, Microsoft can and will track it (If you are a Ubuntu user) For a two weeks time period.

For every person that you forward this e-mail to, Microsoft will pay you $245.00 For every person that you sent it to that forwards it on, Microsoft will pay you $243.00 and for every third person that receives it, You will be paid $241.00. Within two weeks, Microsoft will contact you for your address and then send you a check.

I thought this was a scam myself, But two weeks after receiving this e-mail and forwarding it on. Microsoft contacted me for my address and withindays, I receive a check for $24,800.00. You need to respond before the beta testing is over. If anyone can affoard this, Bill gates is the man.

It's all marketing expense to him. Please forward this to as many people as possible. You are bound to get at least $10,000.00. We're not going to help them out with their e-mail beta test without getting a little something for our time. My brother's girlfriend got in on this a few months ago. When i went to visit him for the Baylor/UT game. She showed me her check. It was for the sum of $4,324.44 and was stamped "Paid in full"

...

ok short term money for long term pain!

[daveb1]

ok short term money for long term pain! Google is better than Bing. Yahoo is dying please ignore them. This is only going to harm the users of ubuntu.

Terrible.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a HORRIBLE idea. Who the hell uses Yahoo these days anyway!? Or Bing for that matter...

But bing sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

With the recent google CEO privacy statement fiasco I actually made a concentrated effort to avoid google search and use bing instead.

After two weeks I was pretty much ready to sell all my private information to google just to have a working search engine again.

The search results from bing were irrelevant rubbish (if not just plain wrong) and it was the same thing whether I searched using English terms or those of my native language.

Bing sucks.

Re:But bing sucks

[hairyfeet]

Did you try Yahoo search? I know it is supposedly "powered by Bing" but I have found its UI and search results to be better. And once you get used to the "more" tab (that is the little blue tab just below the search box) you'll find it is really quite indispensable. It makes it much easier to drill down into a search than either Bing or Google IMHO.

Re:But bing sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I find Bing to be superior in one, but critical, area: searching for porn.

Re:But bing sucks

[Anonymous Coward]

I haven't checked, but I thought that the Bing switchover was going to happen later, and has not happened as of yet.

I could be horribly wrong, which would be the 8th time this week alone, but hey :P

Re:But bing sucks

[hairyfeet]

Well if you haven't tried it in awhile you really ought to give Yahoo Search a chance. I bet if you use the "more" tab for a week (it is the little blue pulldown tab right below the search box) you too will find it a must have feature. As an example I type in the dark knight and not only do I get the usual like reviews and trailers, but the more tab has Christopher Nolan, Heath Ledger, Christian Bale, Aaron Eckhart, etc. It really helps you to quickly drill down into a search and find what you are looking for, or in my case find a really good interview with the director whom I didn't know the name of before searching.

While Google and Bing have something similar, theirs just isn't as deep or as useful as the one in Yahoo I've found. It is really gonna suck if the changeover fucks up the "more" tab, as it really is a "must have" for search IMHO.

Re:But bing sucks

[shutdown -p now]

I suspect you mean Bing video search (with previews!) here specifically, no?

so

[charliemopps11]

could they also install, by default, the addblock plus plugin?

A couple months later....

[Bicx]

All - I am writing to apprise you of two small but important changes coming to Lucid.
I have asked the desktop team to start preparing
these changes to make them available in Lucid as soon as reasonably
possible. Probably on the order of weeks.

Change #1 In Lucid, the desktop background will now feature Google AdSense.
This will aid users in finding sites closely related to the personal information harvested from their home directory.

Change #2
Change #1 will be unoptional.

Why?
I am pursuing this change because Canonical has negotiated a revenue
sharing deal with Google and this revenue will help Canonical to provide
developers and resources to continue the open development of Ubuntu and
the Ubuntu Platform. This change will help provide these resources as
well as continuing to respect our user's default settings, except in the case of the AdSense.

Cheers

Re:first post

[mugurel]

catchy, but incorrect. It should be: Microsoft paying people with other operating systems to use their search engine.

Mandriva

[jbernardo]

You can choose mandriva (great hardware detection, nice support, with rpm instead of deb as the biggest con), or Arch Linux (rolling upgrades, fast, less clutter, but harder to install), or Debian, or SuSE, or Fedora... Just go to distrowatch and take your pick. I'm setting a Mandriva partition on my netbook straight away. Would switch to arch, but my GMA500 takes too much work to support there, as Arch is already on a more recent X server,

use ixquick.com instead - way better privacy

[H4x0r Jim Duggan]

I've switched to using

• http://ixquick.com

It's a meta search engine that focusses on privacy by not logging your IP address and your searches. On the technical side, it's nearly as good as the big name search engine I used previously.

Here's a plugin for GNU IceCat / IceWeasel / Firefox: Ixquick, or the https version (which I haven't tried, but I guess is the same to users).

Re:use ixquick.com instead - way better privacy

[base3]

Cool--thanks! I've been using Scroogle, but am not completely confident it's not a honeypot (though they'd be quite disappointed in my relatively boring searches). It's good to diversify so that it becomes harder to build a comprehensive profile anyway IMO.

Re:use ixquick.com instead - way better privacy

[kangsterizer]

after a quick look results are pretty good but...
IT'S SLOW!

and that's not acceptable unfortunately. not waiting 5-10s for page to display, while google/bing are instant.

Re:use ixquick.com instead - way better privacy

[Bragador]

It's a meta-search engine with no logs. Not only is the privacy much better, you are searching on 11 search engines. 11! Waiting 5 seconds instead of 2 seconds (on my computer) is more than acceptable for that.

Re:use ixquick.com instead - way better privacy

[BitZtream]

Heres an even better idea, you could not give a shit that your searchs are logged and realize they don't give a damn what you do.

Paranoia is costing you more than you realize.

Re:use ixquick.com instead - way better privacy

[bill_mcgonigle]

Paranoia is costing you more than you realize.

But it makes me feel important to think that other people are after me...

Good deal for Microsoft.

[Anonymous Coward]

So Canonical gets some money from Yahoo, and Bing gets search market share from Ubuntu. Overall, I think this was a smart move on the side of Yahoo/Microsoft that will help increase their market share. Just as with the Xbox, Microsoft is trying to conquer a market by `giving money away'-- that is something they still have in quite some abundance, after all.
If it works out, good for Microsoft. If it doesn't, Canonical simply won't get a lot of money.

(Myself, I would have asked Google to match that deal, had I been Canonical.)

I assume that Apple will be getting some material benefit out of switching to Bing, too.

Re:Good deal for Microsoft.

[marcosdumay]

"Myself, I would have asked Google to match that deal, had I been Canonical."

Well, Google wouldn't match the deal if they tought you'd never close the deal with Yahoo.

GIMP on the DVD?

[tepples]

But is GIMP on the install DVD, or will people on a slow connection have to download the .deb on someone else's Ubuntu box and burn their own disc?

Re:GIMP on the DVD?

[Knuckles]

DVD yes, CD (the default install media and the one you can get for free by Ship-it), no.

Sorta...

[Anonymous Coward]

"this would seem to mean that Microsoft will be paying people for using Ubuntu."

True, but not the end user. Microsoft will be paying Canonical for end users using Linux. The user will see nothing of this for using Linux.

REPENT!

[6-tew]

The End is nigh!

Thank Goodness For

[shock1970]

Tools -> Options -> Main -> Homepage

Re:Thank Goodness For

[natehoy]

Actually, what they are changing is the default search engine in the "Chrome" (the little thingamabob up next to the "awesomebar" that is dedicated to searching that most of us call the searchbar). Right now, you'll probably see a little 4-color "G" logo on the left side of the Chrome. After Lucid Lynx comes out, that will be a "Y!".

Click on the Y!, then click on the G, and your default search engine will go back to Google. This will also change your default home page to the Ubuntu custom Google landing page rather than the Ubuntu custom Yahoo! one they'll be introducing in Lucid.

Then, to your point, thank goodness for the ability to change home pages, because I like to keep mine blank. I don't want to report in to someone every time I open my web browser, and I don't want to waste the time and resources (however minimal) to load a web page I'm not going to use.

Oh, God. This is getting old - it is old.

[Anonymous Coward]

If someone thinks that Microsoft has changed their stripes, they are being foolish.

In 1996, John Markoff said, "Rather than merely embrace and extend the Internet, the company's critics now fear, Microsoft intends to engulf it." Bing and putting Bing everywhere, including a major Linux distro is just a continuation of that strategy.

In other words, this is just more of the same for a company trying to leverage the Internet and in their most grandiose scheme, somehow come to dominate it.

Do you (and every other Microsoft critic or hater) get tired of posting things about MS trying to take of the internet or [insert technology here]?

For me it got old in 2001. Apple and others have killed MS in the mobile market, the tablet market is about to be given a boost by Apple today, even on the desktop MS has got its ass kicked. MS tried to nudge into Intuit's turf with MS Accounting (giving away a full functional version for free, btw) to try to take that huge market for Quickbooks from them. Nope. MS shut down the Accounting the product not too long ago. Search engines? Please. Bing doesn't have much of a chance against Google, unfortunately because as far as I'm concerned, MS has a higher ethical standard than Google has.

Anyway, this is 2010, and your comments about MS have no validity - you're just bringing up old shit from a bygone era.

If you want privacy, you are doing it wrong.

[Bragador]

Simply use https://ixquick.com/ since it searches Yahoo! and many search engines. It has no logs, no IP, nothing! In this way, you can use your precious Yahoo! while truly being protected.

Re:If you want privacy, you are doing it wrong.

[Requiem18th]

Where's the catch?

Re:If you want privacy, you are doing it wrong.

[Per Wigren]

They show you ads unless you are running adblock.

Re:If you want privacy, you are doing it wrong.

[Bragador]

As of yet, none.

https://ixquick.com/eng/protect-privacy.html

European Privacy Seal: On July 14th 2008 Ixquick received the first European Privacy Seal from European Data Protection Supervisor Mr. Peter Hustinx. The Seal officially confirms the privacy promises we make to our users. It makes Ixquick the first and only EU-approved search engine. Both EU Commissioner Viviane Reding and Dr.Thilo Weichert, German Privacy Commissioner complemented Ixquick on its privacy achievements.

Certified Secure, a leading Certification Authority, has certified Ixquick's Privacy procedures. The CS Privacy Certificate has been awarded after an extensive audit.

Ixquick has been registered with the Dutch Data Protection Authority (CBP) under number M 1346973. This Authority supervises the fair and lawful use and security of your personal data, to ensure your privacy today and in the future.

Re:If you want privacy, you are doing it wrong.

[Bragador]

https://ixquick.com/eng/protect-privacy.html

European Privacy Seal: On July 14th 2008 Ixquick received the first European Privacy Seal from European Data Protection Supervisor Mr. Peter Hustinx. The Seal officially confirms the privacy promises we make to our users. It makes Ixquick the first and only EU-approved search engine. Both EU Commissioner Viviane Reding and Dr.Thilo Weichert, German Privacy Commissioner complemented Ixquick on its privacy achievements.

Certified Secure, a leading Certification Authority, has certified Ixquick's Privacy procedures. The CS Privacy Certificate has been awarded after an extensive audit.

Ixquick has been registered with the Dutch Data Protection Authority (CBP) under number M 1346973. This Authority supervises the fair and lawful use and security of your personal data, to ensure your privacy today and in the future.

Re:If you want privacy, you are doing it wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

Is that Apples new search engine? *smiiiiiiirk*

Re:If you want privacy, you are doing it wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

Weird hyphenated non-government url for the 'European Privacy Seal' - european-privacy-seal.eu --- I could have made that

CertifiedSecure.com --- nice url, but again, not one of the major authorities I've heard of.

So basically, you're trusting an unheard of company (with a horrible looking search engine), and some 'secure certification' sites you've never heard of.

No thanks. I'll stick to the Devil I Know.

Re:If you want privacy, you are doing it wrong.

[Bragador]

Fair comment. All the employees could even be spies from China for all we know. Though, if everyone would jump to ixquick, the other major players would need to offer equal or better security claims to be competitive.

I feel this alone justifies using ixquick for now.

Re:If you want privacy, you are doing it wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, they've got an image on their website. Some CA that I've never heard of has supposedly "audited" them. And the EU is involved, one of the least-transparent, least-accountable and least-democratic organizations in the Western world.

The only audit I trust is one I perform myself. I don't give a fuck what "seal" they have on their site, or who else has audited them.

They've already failed by using Apache and Linux instead of alternative open source software that is known to take security much more seriously. This is the sort of service that can be run only on OpenBSD.

Re:If you want privacy, you are doing it wrong.

[Bragador]

Well then, feel free to go meet them and offer to certify them. The more the better.

Even if everything was legit (like I think it is), they could all be Chinese spies or something like that so even Google and Microsoft could be infiltrated.

Anyway, I still feel that if more people were using ixquick, Google, Microsoft and the rest would need to offer as much, if not better security to compete. This is what I want.

Re:If you want privacy, you are doing it wrong.

[icebraining]

You agree not to modify, adapt, translate, prepare derivative works from, decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble or otherwise attempt to derive source code from the Ixquick Search Applications.

Emphasis mine.

So I can use their Search engine that they "claim" it's doesn't log, but if I want to use your plugin, I'm not allowed to verify it before running untrusted code?

Re:If you want privacy, you are doing it wrong.

[Anonymous Coward]

At the Seeks project we're building a deployable metasearch frontend to main search engines, http://www.seeks-project.info
While not directly targeted at anonymous websearching, it allows to take back control of your websearch traffic, at least partially.

Re:Microsoft will be paying people for using Ubunt

[i_want_you_to_throw_]

Sweet Jebus, today is the day I need points to mod up posts.

moolah

[zogger]

Ubuntu/Canonical is a large enough company now that they could start selling integrated software/hardware platforms that "just work". Sort of like apple, but all open source as the main difference. They could make money that way. If a local mom and pop whitebox shop can put together systems and make money at it, Canonical could too. Perhaps they could focus on the ARM chip to do this, and start with good affordable netbooks and nettops, and work their way up from there. Heck, maybe jump into cellphones for that matter.

Now.. if Ubuntu can just get

[Anonymous Coward]

Yahoo to code Yahoo! Messenger for Linux. Well, they once did but that effort has fallen into disrepair and neglect.

Canonical?

[Chelloveck]

Am I the only one reading this and asking, "WTF is Canonical?" Neither TFS nor TFA give much of a clue here. Ubuntu's corporate overlord, maybe?

Re:Canonical?

[paziek]

Well, if you google for the name, in first result description you can read "A private company founded by South African entrepreneur Mark Shuttleworth for the promotion of Ubuntu and other free software projects.".
I'm not sure why comment on that? If you are geek, you should've known that name or at least know how to find out.

Re:Canonical?

[natehoy]

Yes. Canonical is the organization that supports and distributes Ubuntu.

Please tear up your geek card and mail it in. Thanks. :)

Re:Canonical?

[Ant P.]

Are you only on Slashdot to post stupid catchphrases or something?

Re:Canonical?

[Anonymous Coward]

Carrot!

Microsoft paying people for using Ubuntu????

[ivanwyc]

Come on, yahoo and microsoft are still two companies, yahoo's business decision is not made by microsoft's management. Yes, yahoo is using microsoft's engine, but so what? You just think too much...

Re:Next step:

[Sir_Lewk]

I think step three in your plan is something along the lines of "users get fed up with the irrelevant searchh results yahoo seems to be giving them, and switch back to using google."

And really, if this was somehow a good idea, why would they only do it to Ubuntu? Why not hit other alternative operating system users as well? This will really only work if Yahoo steals the user's underpants as well.

why is something rational and rightful modded down

[unity100]

a) they clearly stated that upgrades will change your existing setting to yahoo

i second that - anyone, with anything, for any reason, changes my already saved settings to something i didnt choose for, is on my blacklist.

anyone who argues otherwise can go to hell. its MY personal preferences and settings. if, even a free software organization messes with that, and for profit, they can shove their software up their asses. i take up free software to be free in anyway. i cant tolerate small or major interventions to my freedoms for any amount of profit they may receive.

+1, troll

[Thud457]

hey, they're running Ubuntu, not Gentoo...

Yahoo privacy?! Haha!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm tempted to go Yahoo anyway due to their better privacy policies

Policy?! I assume you're talking about the same Yahoo that had exposed my dad's name, age, and location to the public long enough that yesterday a fake account had "connected" to him involuntarily, despite my explicitly unchecking the public profile boxes when the account was set up, and despite that he doesn't use Yahoo for anything but e-mail with people he already knows. Apparently it was exposed anyway. And also, apparently, you can't stop people from "connecting" to and watching you on Yahoo anymore; once they decide to bless you with their eyes, you can only be connected or invite them to be even more connected. No "deny this person" option that I could find within 2 minutes, and certainly no explicit link to deny them in the e-mail from Yahoo, since that would affect whatever statistics they are giving to their advertisers based on involuntary links.

He'll be moving over to Google soon. I've long since switched to Google for real mail and other things. Whatever their "policy" is, they have a demonstrated record of not exposing personal information to the public without asking you first, and when Google introduces a new experiment, their marketing strategy does not depend on tricking everyone into joining it with misleading links and buttons, and they don't decide on your behalf that you should be friends/contacts/connected/in-love-with/permanently-exposed-to people without your consent. Yahoo has done this repeatedly in the last 2-3 years to me and several people I know. New Forced-Adobe-Flash Yahoo Mail and Yahoo 360/New Yahoo Profiles have been the most blatant examples. Meanwhile, Yahoo Mail and Yahoo Messenger have become less and less stable with every version.

And If Ubuntu makes their default URL a redirect to Yahoo, I will be changing the home page URL.

Its not about changing it back. its about support.

[unity100]

millions of users wont change it back. some wont even know they can change it back.

some people who see that guy use ubuntu in his house and get inspired will start using ubuntu, and wont change back.

its about supporting philosophy. we are supporting free software, for freedom. software that becomes less free by getting entangled with determinedly anti freedom stance corporations are bad for us to support for future. it may be just the mono and yahoo/bing search change now, but it is just for now. if this is not responded to, other 'changes' may come up.

Re:first post

[Crudely_Indecent]

Still not quite correct, it should be: Microsoft paying other people who manage an open source operating system to switch their end users default search engine.

I don't know about you, but I don't get paid by Microsoft to use Bing/Yahoo. It seems that the people who are getting paid are Canonical, not the users. I'm just glad they're providing options.

well

[unity100]

with me, that made 2 'anonymous' cowards.

probably as of this moment im typing these, it has been 3. and probably will be 4 in the coming minutes. in the end, it will end up in a lot of people.

excuse me, but we use free software for freedom. if ubuntu intervenes in our freedom, in order to make profit, for whatsoever reason, it means they left the freedom philosophy. ill find another, more free linux distribution.

Re:well

[Anonymous Coward]

Who do you think you're fooling with this manufactured outrage over a non-issue? Nobody cares about your geek boycott. Not even you.

Re:well

[shutdown -p now]

excuse me, but we use free software for freedom. if ubuntu intervenes in our freedom, in order to make profit, for whatsoever reason

How does switching the default setting from one closed-source search engine (Google) to another closed-source search engine (Yahoo/Bing) intervenes in your freedom? It's not like one is any more or less "free" than the other (if anything, Bing is better privacy-wise), and your real freedom - the freedom to choose something different - is unimpeded?

Or do you mean the "freedom of everyone to do things the exact way I want them to do, and no other"?

Re:well

[yurtinus]

He means "I don't like Microsoft and it's been a good four hours since I've gotten my nerd rage on."

Re:well

[unity100]

are you asking me why a piece of software messing and changing with my settings will constitute an infringement upon my freedom ? i dont even need to answer that.

as for your other question, it is a matter of vision. their move with mono, and now this, signifies that they are increasingly moving away from a philosophy of freedom, and getting more corporate. waiting for more to come while being immersed in such a source's software would be just foolish.

Re:well

[unity100]

but my relatives, my friends and my colleagues do.

Re:well

[shutdown -p now]

are you asking me why a piece of software messing and changing with my settings will constitute an infringement upon my freedom ? i dont even need to answer that.

Where did you see a piece of software messing with and changing your settings? This is strictly about the default settings for the user without a Firefox profile. If you have one already (even if it's still the default profile from an older Ubuntu install), you won't have Google replaced by Yahoo in it - it will respect the existing choice of a search engine.

as for your other question, it is a matter of vision. their move with mono, and now this, signifies that they are increasingly moving away from a philosophy of freedom, and getting more corporate.

I'm surprised you expected much in terms of "philosophy of freedom" from Ubuntu, given that they always were on the more pragmatic edge of the Linux distro spectrum - they kept providing branded Firefox when their upstream distro stopped doing so, they always allowed for an easy, practically in-your-face way to enable proprietary closed-source graphics and wireless drivers (I don't know how else to describe a popup that pretty much says, "your system is currently FOSS only, so it sucks - how about I go download some proprietary stuff for you, and we fix this?"), etc. In fact, given that Mono is genuine FLOSS, I don't see how it is any more "counter-freedom" than my example with drivers above.

Re:well

[unity100]

you keep missing the point of the rate and way things are going with ubuntu. yesterday those, today this. if you dont expect another thing or two in the same direction from them tomorrow, its naive. so its about principles, and philosophy. there is a point where one should abandon a ship that is sinking due to principles.

Re:well

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me introduce you to my friend, The Slippery Slope.

If you're going to argue something, please do so because you have a valid point rather than, "I h8 micro$oft and LUV Google".

Re:well

[Americano]

Well, with 2 of you outraged, and numbers 3 and 4 soon to be outraged, I'd guess we just cut Ubuntu's market share by a good 10%, right?

Most people don't see a computer as a crusade for freedom, or an end in itself. They see it as a means for communicating with other people, listening to some music, getting some work done, and downloading a bit of porn on the odd quiet night they decide they want to tug one off. They don't really give 2 runny squirts of shit about their "freedom" to recompile the kernel or any other piece of their system because most people lack the specialized knowledge and skills required to take advantage of these "freedoms". Computers are an appliance (multi-functional, to be sure, but an appliance all the same) to the vast majority of computer users today.

While I salute your dedication to freedom as it applies to your hobby, spouting off here about what you intend to do about this incredible slight to your freedom is pretty pointless.

Re:well

[Americano]

Bring it up at lunch today or dinner tonight. See that pained look in your relatives', friends', and colleagues' eyes?

You know what that is?

Yeah?

That's them going, "Oh, god, not this "free software" Braveheart shit again."

Re:well

[Steve Max]

If you have one already (even if it's still the default profile from an older Ubuntu install), you won't have Google replaced by Yahoo in it - it will respect the existing choice of a search engine.

Actually, it will explicitly change the system-wide default. Therefore, if you didn't change the setting from its default (Google), it will stay at the default (now Yahoo). It won't respect your existing choice if that choice was "Yes, I want Google, so I won't mess with that".

Re:well

[Stupendoussteve]

Sounds like you should be using gNewSense.

Re:well

[Anonymous Coward]

Most people don't see a computer as a crusade for freedom, or an end in itself.

No, but many people hae switched from Windows to Ubuntu because they are pissed off with Windows/Microsoft. Pissing off these users who are likely to be ones advocating Ubuntu to their less tech savvy friends/family will cut the Ubuntu user base because these users will now advocate a different linux distro.

I'm not obsessed with Freedom, but this has still annoyed me because it is an unnecessary deal with Microsoft (albeit indirectly through Yahoo).

Re:well

[unity100]

slippery slope and whatnot, you didnt provide shit of an argument yourself while accusing me of slippery slopes. i have nothing to discuss with you.

Re:icrosoft will be paying people for using Ubuntu

[u38cg]

Sadly, it's nonsense. Microsoft are providing a service to Yahoo, which Yahoo are paying for. Yahoo are also paying for Yahoo to be the default in Ubuntu. In short, no money is flowing from Microsoft to Ubuntu.

This should be rated 10 not 0

[baomike]

Nailed it.

silly sarcasm is silly.

[unity100]

their agenda is making money by being a monopoly. and a monopoly that will have the power to control what you see, what you hear through numerous control schemes like drm to boot.

please dont employ sarcasm foolhardily.

Re:silly sarcasm is silly.

[Anonymous Coward]

their agenda is making money by being a monopoly

Ohh.. is that it? I thought every business always wanted 0.1% market share. Businesses want more market share, who would have thought that!? You are so clever dude.

and a monopoly that will have the power to control what you see, what you hear through numerous control schemes like drm to boot.

lol.. if you believe that you're a complete nutjob and its not worth conversing with you. Goodbye !

Re:silly sarcasm is silly.

[shutdown -p now]

their agenda is making money by being a monopoly

And Google agenda is any different?

Re:silly sarcasm is silly.

[unity100]

google is a lot different. first, they havent used any of their products to push their other products unto unwitting customers without them having any choice and information beforehand. from gmail to others, all their products was fielded separately from their established products, although you could link them later when you logged into any of them if you wished with one login. its not like they have shoved up gmail to people who searched 'mail' over google or anything. all of the products were marketed with the google hype, people searching for the product, even pestering each other for invitations to get a beta account, instead of the products appearing in their google search one day. this tells a lot.

in addition, almost all of google's products have liberated and empowered individuals, ranging from adsense giving a rebirth to internet advertising by allowing smalltime webmasters and publishers to make money - who were treated like dipshit by big corporations, including microsoft and ignored up to that point - to the many tools they provided for people to use to better their products and services for free.

thats a lot of difference in philosophy.

Re:silly sarcasm is silly.

[unity100]

and you are full of reason, logic, arguments and manners.

Re:silly sarcasm is silly.

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you ever notice that wise, insightful people often use an extended vocabulary and take care to express their meaning succinctly and to the point, while people who lack that kind of insight and to whom the observations of former people often appear nutty at first, prophetic later, talk like, well, you?

No? Well, "lol". It's a shame that you're in the majority and will drag us down with you.

They should just...

[Cytlid]

... all combine into one company: Yahooglebinguntu.

So?

[i_ate_god]

Uhm, there is absolutely nothing wrong here. It's amazing how many people feel that their principles have been compromised when really, there is only Google, or Bing, and the rest is just fluff. Besides, it's not as if Ubuntu doesn't empower you to change anything you want.

So really, stop the hyperbole and scaremongering already.

or perhaps Ubuntu users giving money to Microsoft?

[dirac3000]

So, Yahoo has a deal with Microsoft, and Ubuntu uses Yahoo as default search engine in their default browser. So Ubuntu users by default will be contribuiting to the income of Microsoft. Where's the part of "or perhaps Ubuntu users giving money to Microsoft" that I don't get?

firefox only

[kel-tor]

so this only applies to firefox? meh

Why this is a problem

[IGnatius T Foobar]

There's a subtle negative feedback loop here, and I think it's a bit short sighted for Canonical to contribute to it.

Google is a huge advocate and supporter of Linux. Google helps to make Linux happen. Google helps to make the non-Microsoft ecosystem happen. By sending Ubuntu users to Yahoo search (which, as has been mentioned, is actually Bing), Canonical is helping Microsoft to chip away at Google's market share. This is not good! Google is the non-Microsoft world's single biggest chance of finally taking down the monopolist. If Google falls, Microsoft will make sure that the Web becomes a Windows-only experience. Do we really want that to happen?

Actually, I think that after Google finishes polishing up the Linux version of Chrome, they should pony up a few bucks to make Chrome (and Google search) the default web browser in Ubuntu. What's good for Google is good for Linux, and vice versa. Or as has been said here many times before: the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Re:Why this is a problem

[shutdown -p now]

Or as has been said here many times before: the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Going by your logic, with friends like Apple and Oracle, Linux won't even need enemies.

Re:Why this is a problem

[marcosdumay]

"Or as has been said here many times before: the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

But if two of your enemies fight, which of them you align with? (I'm not saying that it is the case here.)

Re:Why this is a problem

[md65536]

"the enemy of my enemy is my friend."

But if two of your enemies fight, which of them you align with? (I'm not saying that it is the case here.)

In that case they're both enemies of enemies, and thus each both a friend and enemy. They're guys you maybe hang out with but secretly hate. So you get out of the way and let them scrap it out for awhile. You watch, with a silly grin. Perhaps you take out your cell phone and get some footage.

Score: 0, Offtopic

Re:why is something rational and rightful modded d

[edwardsdl]

Right now your personal preferences are set to one of two things:
a)Search Engine = Default
b)Search Engine = Google

If it is 'a', you're still going to be using the "Default" search engine. Now the "Default" is Yahoo.
If it is 'b', you're still going to be using "Google".

They have not "changes [your] already saved settings to something [you] didnt choose for".

Go eat a Cheeto, count to 10, and come back once you've gotten your nerd rage under control.

supporting Linux?

[Anonymous Coward]

Every time I go to the new yahoo mail on my Ubuntu box, I'm told "your operating system has not been tested..."

So, are they actually going to start supporting Linux?

Just switch back

[defaria]

How many people will simply switch it back to Google? (Raises hand...)

Not a big deal

[motang]

Not really a big deal for me as you can easily change it. I say if it helps fund Ubuntu then it's a minor change.

Re:first post

[aztracker1]

There's no such thing as a free lunch. Canonical needs to have at least some income to be able to pay the electricity and bandwidth bills. I would like to see them give a bit more back in supporting the projects for the software they most use. Given their recent survey on popular software, I can't help but get the impression they may be funding some developer resources for WINE.

Re:first post

[icebraining]

You don't get money, but you get a free OS (well, unless you contribute back, which most people don't). You're paid in goods :)

Awesome, Ubuntu is such a community player.

[BitZtream]

Yep, they sure are, making money off of someone elses work ... thats the true spirit of OSS.

Fortunately for Ubuntu, its entirely acceptable from Mozilla's standpoint, but it certainly qualifies them as fucking douche bags.

Re:Awesome, Ubuntu is such a community player.

[jim_v2000]

Your issue is that you, like most people, like freedom as long as it's freedom done your way. As soon as someone does something you don't like, they're douche bags. I'm sure you wouldn't give two shits if they had switched from Yahoo to Google.

Re:Awesome, Ubuntu is such a community player.

[BitZtream]

I don't give two shits about who they use actually.

I don't even give a shit that they are using Mozilla's work for their own gain, Mozilla is okay with it as well.

My problem is that they are taking out of Mozilla's pocket and putting it into their own.

Google pays Mozilla to have its search as default, that money funds further Mozilla development.

Canonical on the other hand is taking Mozilla's work, and not just profiting from it, but actually lowering the value of Mozilla to Google, lowering the likelyhood that Google will continue to pay for the default search.

To me, this is just flat out stealing from Mozilla.

If they rebrand it and stop using Firefox as the name, I'll not have a problem, but all they are doing is riding on Mozilla's coat tails to make a profit while directly hurting Mozilla. Not just making a profit off someone elses work but intentionally hurting the ones who make the code base they are using with out giving a single thing back.

Next they'll start sending Mozilla a bill for doing them the favor.

finally ...

Your issue is that you, like most people, like freedom as long as it's freedom done your way.

I realize you think you're making an Earth shattering statement, but you didn't. EVERYONE is like this, yourself included. The first indication that someone only wants it done their way, is when they start telling people they are intolerant and that they only want it don their way.

Its like when someone calls someone closed minded because they disagree. The very act of telling someone they are closed minded or making a statement like yours shows that you are, in fact guilty of the exact same thing. You are intolerant of my view point because it does not align with yours, which is exactly what your accusing me of.

Next time you might want to try not being such an obvious hypocrite.

Re:Awesome, Ubuntu is such a community player.

[jim_v2000]

Before you call me a hypocrite, realize that you were the one talking about "the true spirit of OSS", not me.

Re:Awesome, Ubuntu is such a community player.

[tokul]

Yep, they sure are, making money off of someone elses work ... thats the true spirit of OSS.

Nope. That's a spirit of capitalist bastards doing business on OSS.

Re:Awesome, Ubuntu is such a community player.

[DragonWriter]

don't even give a shit that they are using Mozilla's work for their own gain, Mozilla is okay with it as well.

My problem is that they are taking out of Mozilla's pocket and putting it into their own.

Google pays Mozilla to have its search as default, that money funds further Mozilla development.

Canonical on the other hand is taking Mozilla's work, and not just profiting from it, but actually lowering the value of Mozilla to Google, lowering the likelyhood that Google will continue to pay for the default search.

To me, this is just flat out stealing from Mozilla.

As you note above, Mozilla is okay with it. This makes it decidedly not like stealing from Mozilla. If I tell you that you can have something of mine, and you take it, that's not stealing.

Now, it may be exploiting Mozilla's failure to consider their own long-term interests (though I'm not as convinced as you are that this is bad for Mozilla in the first place, but lets assume that it is), but it isn't anything like stealing.

Re:first post

[BrokenHalo]

Canonical needs to have at least some income to be able to pay the electricity and bandwidth bills.

In any case, anyone with the minimal savvy required to use Ubuntu will also have the requisite smarts to change the default search engine to one of their choosing.

Re:first post

[HiThere]

I don't know about you, but my first act will be to switch default search engines back to Google. I don't trust Bing as far as I can throw it, and there's no place to grab.

So does Cannonical get paid even if I don't use the default? I hope so, but the wording wasn't encouraging.

Bad summary

[Anonymous Coward]

this would seem to mean that Microsoft will be paying people for using Ubuntu

Despite how much you'd like such an irony to be true, you have no capacity for reading comprehension. They're paying people to use their search engine. Period.

Re:first post

[ElSupreme]

And you trust Google???

How about more conservative patching

[Pausanias]

How about the other option of not making so many goddam patches? After the Debian OpenSSH debacle, I lost my faith in the Debian "development model" of letting newbs patch core software like OpenSSH for fun. Who try to one-up Theo on security, for crying out loud?

Debian had better rethink the necessity of its myriad patches. So many of the frustrating regressions in Ubuntu are due to some useless patch made to the kernel by downstream.

Re:How about more conservative patching

[swillden]

How about the other option of not making so many goddamn patches?

How would that have addressed the problem with Firefox being non-free?

Re:Its not about changing it back. its about suppo

[shutdown -p now]

its about supporting philosophy. we are supporting free software, for freedom. software that becomes less free by getting entangled with determinedly anti freedom stance corporations are bad for us to support for future. it may be just the mono and yahoo/bing search change now, but it is just for now. if this is not responded to, other 'changes' may come up.

I can more or less understand your beef with MS, but this deal does not promote MS in any way. It promotes Yahoo. It doesn't display MS logos anywhere, and it doesn't display Bing logos anywhere. Go ahead, open Yahoo, run some search, and look at the search page and the results page - I dare you to find any mention of MS or Bing there!

Now, Yahoo search uses Bing as a backend, yes. This isn't in any way exposed to the users, however. It's between the two corps. And if being powered by MS technology is somehow detrimental to you, then you might also want to stop using Linux entirely, since the kernel contains some code written by Microsoft.

Or is your problem with closed-source code in Bing, in particular? Then why are you using Google, which is equally closed?

Re:or perhaps Ubuntu users giving money to Microso

[shutdown -p now]

Canonical is payed by Yahoo to use the latter as the default search engine in Ubuntu, and Yahoo was in turn payed by Microsoft to use Bing as a backend for their search. So you could stretch it, and say that Yahoo is paying Canonical with Microsoft's money. And since most users would likely just switch it back to Google, anyway, they aren't paying for much.

Ultimately, of course, it's already Yahoo's money, so how they choose to waste it is up to them (and not MS).

Yes

[Anonymous Coward]

n/t

With tiredness comes poor management.

[Anonymous Coward]

Mark Shuttleworth, owner of Canonical, seems tired of being involved in software. With tiredness comes poor management.

Lunix- defeated

[Anonymous Coward]

What this really means is that Ubunghole is forced to admit Microsoft is superior.

It's ok guys, the truth always hurts. But reality will always be here waiting for you to rejoin us.

Allow me to elaborate

[jonaskoelker]

Well Debian['s] goal is to be Pure GNU at all costs even if it [affects] the end user.

The goal isn't exactly some abstract notion of purity, nor is it to be "The GNU Linux".

The goal, I believe, is to deliver a high-quality collection of software which is licensed compatibly with the Debian Free Software Guidelines (http://www.debian.org/social_contract).

I quote: "We will never make the system require the use of a non-free component" and "We will be guided by the needs of our users"

[Ubuntu] is a bit lax on this and its goal is to be more focused on its users

I disagree: Ubuntu isn't more focused on its users. Ubuntu is more focused on its users' pragmatic needs. Debian is more focused on its users' ideological needs.

Note: the key word is more. It's not all or nothing: "We will support people who create or use both free and non-free works on Debian. [...] We acknowledge that some of our users require the use of works that do not conform to the Debian Free Software Guidelines. [...] contrib and non-free"

In the firefox case, the Debian project decided that 1. shipping only free software in the base system; and 2. shipping firefox in the base system was more important than 3. shipping a branded firefox. Ubuntu decided that 3 and 2 were more important than 1. Pragmatic vs. Idealistic needs.

And my personal spin: sacrificing a cute logo and calling the rose an iceflower---really, is it that big a deal? It still smells like a good web browser, and that's what I want: good software, with good ideals. I prefer the Debian decision.

This Marks the End

[NReitzel]

For what it's worth, that marks my last Ubuntu install.

There are other fish in the sea, and Yahoo is a boat anchor.

Re:This Marks the End

[jim_v2000]

Dramatic much? But then again, a lot of the OSS zealots tend to be like that. One little thing changes and their panties get all bunched up.

Re:first post

[Vovk]

of course!

Microsoft is a multi-billion dollar corporation with it's fingers in almost every aspect of modern computer application development and use.

Google is a... well... Google's logo is better!

Microsoft's answer to Summer of Code

[tepples]

as a company Google is certainly the more open-source-friendly.

True, but your example might not be the best:

They give $5M/year to open source projects via the Google Summer of Code.

Google has Google Code; Microsoft has CodePlex.com. Google sponsors Summer of Code; Microsoft sponsors CodePlex Foundation.

Re:Its not about changing it back. its about suppo

[unity100]

its not about promotion. yahoo uses bing now. this change will make a lot of people use bing, and give cards into microsoft's hands. which is precisely what they have repeatedly said in earlier occasions regarding their internet policy and internal memos that leaked out.

you very well know that 'containing' code written by a party is not similar to something that hands out numerous tracking information and statistics about web users to a company. which, is as you know, is the gold of this decade. and the precise extent of what can be done using this information, nobody knows yet.

my problem is with corporate mindset, and going the corporate way and playing into hands of a corporation that has honestly came out with very ill intentions against not only free software, but internet freedom in general. this is microsoft.

if a developer group, a foundation is able to stomach doing such a thing, logic says that they can stomach a lot of other things, and this requires being wary.

Near-monoculture of search engines

[cpghost]

How comes we're so dependent on two major search engines? Isn't that unhealthy on the long run? Wasn't there a project in the past to build our own distributed crawler and indexer? Why won't we "open source" Google... I mean why don't we have a community-driven open search engine? This (hypothetical) open search engine could (or should?) be the default in OSS distributions, IMHO, instead of a closed-source provider (yes, even Google's indexing algorithm is closed-source).

aaaah you know

[unity100]

i am pretty fine with my 'nerd rage', which stems from my principles and my preferences, and i am not going to control it, and moreover i am going to act in accordance with it. anyone, any group, any company who would want my support, contribution or business should act in accordance with my preferences.

this is what i think.

i am a citizen of internet, a consumer, a developer, a contributor, an administrator, a webmaster, a gamer and many other things, like many other people found in abundance around the net. and i am going to make my choices, purchases, contributions to groups other than ubuntu crowd, just because of this incident. it is because i chose so, because i didnt like what has been pushed in front of me. i dont mind rationalizations either, i do not like this.

and half assed smartass comments like 'nerd rage' and whatnot only increases that determination and alienates me from the subject at hand.

Re:aaaah you know

[Americano]

i am [ . . . ] and many other things, like many other people found in abundance around the net

Really? I thought everybody else on the net was a 1-dimensional character created by my subconscious desires for adulation.

Re:aaaah you know

[Anonymous Coward]

In this case your ignorance and inability to keep a calm head and accurately assess the situation led you to make asinine comments on the internet. And ignorant comments like "changes my already saved settings to something i didnt choose for" and whatnot only increases my determination to point out your stupidity.

Re:Microsoft will be paying people for using Ubunt

[Anonymous Coward]

stfu

Re:Microsoft will be paying people for using Ubunt

[Anonymous Coward]

wow, who pissed in your cornflakes?

Re:Microsoft will be paying people for using Ubunt

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot the most important part. That goes, my friend is a lawyer. She check this out and it's all legal.

Bing highjacking - who is the cause?

[thetoadwarrior]

This annoys me but at least it's been announced and I will switch however I've had two Firefox machines that had their keyword search and default searches set to Bing.

I don't know if it's Mozilla or MS doing it. I know Mozilla told people to switch but never said they would do it and apparently I'm not the only one. http://support.mozilla.com/tiki-view_forum_thread.php?locale=tr&comments_parentId=361018&forumId=1#threadId368122

Does anyone know who's responsible for going ahead and changing Firefox's search from Google to Bing? I'm not impressed either way. I would not be impressed if it was the other way around too.

It feels like it's an underhanded tactic to try and force Bing on people and I don't think most people will be happy. If it is Microsoft doing this, they won't make people fans of Bing by forcing it on them behind their back.

Navigates to Distrowatch...

[fatalGlory]

... after considering switching back to vanilla debian for some time, this might be the straw that broke the camels back. Where free software meets the corporate world, trust is everything. And trust is not something I have for yahoo/bing search. I don't trust them to provide good, comprehensive search results (I DO trust google to do that), and I don't trust them not to screw the Ubuntu community (tests on google doing that are inconclusive thus far, but fairly promising).

Re:first post

[master5o1]

It's not that I don't trust Bing, or trust Google more. It's that I just prefer Google.

Besides, Bing is a shitty name.

Ubuntu's Microsoftization - tick tock!

[Anonymous Coward]

The clock is ticking..

I hoped Mark Shuttleworth would never leave his position with Canonical/Ubuntu. His involvement with Ubuntu may exist now but for how long and how strongly will he maintain any cautiousness with Microsoft's potentialized future involvement?

IMO the clock is tick tick ticking. With the news of Shuttleworth leaving, I'm counting the days before another goldfish (this time, Ubuntu) is swallowed up by some deal from Microsoft, or at least shackled by some binding agreement.

anecdote, n. pl. data

[tepples]

It proves that Google has an open-source product whose counterpart at Microsoft is not open source. This in turn proves nothing by itself but is one anecdote toward Google having more of an open-source focus.

Re:first post

[Kopachris]

No, I don't trust Google, but I trust Yahoo/Microsoft even less.

Re:first post

[HiThere]

MS has repeatedly proved that anyone who trusts them is a fool. Google has only indicated it a few times, and never done a thorough proof.

Re:first post

[Rik Rohl]

At the moment, Microsoft hates Google more than they hate Linux.

Re:first post

[BitZtream]

I agree, they need to make money, but this isn't just making money, this is making money by directly taking away from someone else.

Canonical makes more, Mozilla makes less.

I'm fine with Canonical making money, I like Ubuntu. I'm not okay with them doing so by stealing it from Mozilla.

Of course, if they don't have a viable business model they should fix it or stop, instead of stealing from the people who help make their product useful.

In the event...

[denmarkw00t]

that anyone is upset here, let me set you straight.

This is actually good, at least in one way: I prefer Google BUT, the G has lately been someone who isn't so concerned with privacy, and anyone bored enough to read my post read the posts about Google's infamous "If you have something to hide you shouldn't be doing it" and the whole story about their data retention policies vs. other providers (notably, Bing moving to what 3 months?)

So, if I install this Ubuntu version, fresh (as stated above an upgrade includes the ability to preserve your settings), and don't care for Yahoo - I just installed Linux. I know how to change my default settings. Most - not all - Linux users, are aware of the ability to select your search engine in the quick search in the top right - its that familiar favicon that gives it away.

"Hmm, whats that purple Y thing? Where's my G!?!? Oh f it, I'll go with the B!"

My desktop system

[Anonymous Coward]

Will be migrating to plain Debian when it's next released. I've already had about all the shit I could take from Ubuntu, and this is the final straw.

Re:first post

[dave87656]

I agree. If MS wants to pay Ubuntu for setting the default search engine to Yahoo, then more power to Ubuntu. Most people will switch it to Google, of course. Word's getting around that Bing filters results to their own advantage with the now famous "Why is Windows so expensive?" query. MS changed the results to show why open source is so expensive.

who is earning from Yahoo search (which uses BING)

[Anonymous Coward]

This does not mean Microsoft is paying anything: Microsoft is EARNING from this deal.

Re:first post

[Anonymous Coward]

"Stealing" from Mozilla? Dude, are you on crack?

Re:Microsoft will be paying people for using Ubunt

[gauharjk]

Microsoft owes me $1.5 million for all the emails I have forwarded for them since last week.

Defaults, pfft!

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, just like no one cares whether one browser or another is installed by default on a certain OS, because it's trivial to just install another.

reply from anonymous coward

[Anonymous Coward]

After Google stiffed mozilla I decided to change search engines. In addition, I canned Chrome on the XP dual boot. Bling was MS, Yahoo is now MS, I thought about AltaVista (which was my first search engine), but ended up with DogPile which apparently is a compilation or amalgamation of them all. Still open to better suggestion. Same with email. I've used yahoo for so many years that I am not quite sure how to make a change without all the muss of correcting all the contacts. Open for solid suggestions here too. I'm not opposed to successful companies and folks earning a living, but when we head down the road of hegemony and monopolies that purposefully 'kill' off other options through underhanded and less than scrupulous means, count me out.

Re:first post

[Tubal-Cain]

In any case, anyone with the minimal savvy required to install Ubuntu will also have the requisite smarts to change the default search engine to one of their choosing.

Fixed that for you. Some of us have users that can't change it.