Firefox Search In Ubuntu 10.04 Changed To Google

kai_hiwatari writes "Sometime back Canonical decided to change the default search in Firefox that comes Ubuntu 10.04 to Yahoo! from Google. In a surprising turn-around, Canonical have decided to a ditch Yahoo! for Google. Rick Spencer from Canonical announced that Google will now be the default Firefox search in Ubuntu 10.04, not Yahoo! as was previously decided."

Comments

Good for them

[iammani]

I dont think any one would want Yahoo as default search

Re:Good for them

[Pojut]

I sure wouldn't. Why were they going to go with yahoo in the first place?

Re:Good for them

[HarrySquatter]

Money? Google must have offered them more to come back then they were originally paying Canonical.

Re:Good for them

[Anonymous Coward]

Click on the first link in TFA, read approximately 1.5 lines of text and you have your answer.

Re:Good for them

[valros]

Finances, they were upping Google's offer and I would say Google has now offered more than yahoo.

Re:Good for them

[Krneki]

I dont think any one would want Yahoo as default search

Who gives a shit about what users wants anyway?

Look at Microsoft or Apple, they tell you what you need.

Re:Good for them

[sopssa]

Exactly. Why is this news? Canonical calculated that they get better commissions from Google than Yahoo at this point. It leads me to believe that Google increased their payout for Canonical and they switched back from Yahoo.

/thread

Re:Good for them

[HarrySquatter]

And they hold 99% of the desktop market.

Re:Good for them

[BrokenHalo]

Click on the first link in TFA, read approximately 1.5 lines of text and you have your answer.

It doesn't cost you anything to elaborate:

"Canonical, the company behind the popular Ubuntu Linux distribution, revealed today that it has established a revenue sharing agreement with Yahoo. As part of the deal, the Firefox Web browser that is shipped in Ubuntu will be configured to use Yahoo as the default search engine . . . "

Re:Good for them

[Achromatic1978]

"I've upped my offer. Now, up yours!"

Re:Good for them

[AvitarX]

If I had to guess it would be that people were ditching yahoo! and changing their homepage etc.

So even though yahoo! was paying more, people fleeing the default lead to a lot of zeros getting averaged in for canonical.

Re:Good for them

[poetmatt]

Basically. That and yahoo's search quality/layout used to be crap. I don't know if it is anymore because I don't even use it.

Re:Good for them

[poetmatt]

significantly smart competitive move by google.

Either a: yahoo gets forced to spend more, now or b: google is back as default.

Re:Good for them

[__aasqbs9791]

...It doesn't cost you anything to elaborate: ...

He pays for internet by the character you insensitive clod!

Re:Good for them

[An ominous Cow art]

...It doesn't cost you anything to elaborate: ...

He pays for internet by the character you insensitive clod!

Another happy Verizon customer?

Re:Good for them

[shaitand]

Has anyone considered the possibility they were boycotting Google after they caved to gov censorship in China and now support them again now that they have moved out?

Re:Good for them

[mjkjedi]

Google.cn launched in Jan 2006.

Re:Good for them

[aztracker1]

well, 98% or so... ;)

Re:Good for them

[shutdown -p now]

Alternatively, they could have realized that the PR hit they would take with geek & power user audience from going with Yahoo would cost them more than any direct revenue they'd get from that. And they do need geeks to do evangelizing, and to some extent tech support (forums etc) for them.

Re:Good for them

[pbhj]

To attempt to turn Yahoo down and go with a worse offer from Google? Surely Yahoo will never look at them again and Google will have cut their offer from the original that was considered not good enough. I can't really see your interpretation being right.

Re:Good for them

[Yfrwlf]

Obviously they try to provide you with what you want as well as telling you. If there were incredibly vast differences between what you actually wanted, and what you used, the moment competition came about it will be all over. Sure there are lots of unfair tactics and silly mind games at work as well, control of consumer products and advertisement being big parts of that, but hey it's the Internet age, those tactics are less relevant now at least.

Re:Good for them

[Super Marx Brothers]

Agreed; using Yahoo as a default search might have made sense more than a decade ago. Now, it's about as en vogue as a MySpace page.

Re:Good for them

[Kittenman]

Just checked - it's 98.5% ....now.

Re:Good for them

[Anonymous Coward]

I dont think any one would want Yahoo as default search

Who gives a shit about what users wants anyway?

Look at Microsoft or Apple, they tell you what you need.

Um, last I checked, I didn't need to purchase lube and grip my ankles...

Re:Good for them

[countertrolling]

No, because that kind of stuff is nothing but tabloid fodder for the masses. Assets and liabilities are only thing that matters. And chances are that they probably bought a peace of Baidu, or participating in a series of "consultations".. for a reasonable fee of course..

Re:Good for them

[countertrolling]

HA! piece! brother..

Re:Good for them

[BikeHelmet]

I dont think any one would want Yahoo as default search

Conspiracy theorists will suggest that Google outbid Yahoo.

But of course, the real reason is all the people complaining to them and posting about it on their forums. With community driven projects, pissing off your community isn't such a good idea. Also, it seemed silly to be powered by Bing.

Re:Good for them

[CodeDragonDM]

Ah, good old "Sorry baby" technique. Throw a temper-tantrum, get paid. Grossly oversimplifying, but the principle holds true.

Re:Good for them

[man1sh]

Anyway I think that either the deal fell through as Yahoo found that there is hardly any traffic coming from Ubuntu

OR

Yahoo offered them more.

Whatever say, Ubuntu's strength is community, still there are many people there who are hardly bothered by this change as they can change it with one click. They don't bother to bitch about it.

Yahoo? What's that?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I'll have to Google that one.

Re:Yahoo? What's that?

[xTantrum]

Who cares about default search engines. What they need to do is figure out how to get firefox scrolling to work properly instead of it freezing up my computer every two seconds. It blows chunks right now on Karmic with FF3.

Re:Yahoo? What's that?

[Teun]

Why not try Lucid Lynx?

Re:Yahoo? What's that?

[Shotgun]

Dude, spend some money and get rid of that 486.

Re:Yahoo? What's that?

[Yfrwlf]

And also install adblock and flashblock.

Unfortunately

[dsavi]

Unfortunately, apparently nobody outside of Canonical actually knows why they switched back. Wasn't it that Yahoo! offered them money? Then the only conclusion I can come to is that Google outbid them.

Re:Unfortunately

[I confirm I'm not a]

Fortunately one Canonical employee is prepared to share what they know with us: from TFA:
Rick Spencer, who announced the change back to Google, said that Canonical have decided to change back to Google after deciding that Google Search will be more familiar to a lot of users upgrading to Ubuntu 10.04...

Of course, you may choose not to believe that. But Canonical are providing an explanation.

Re:Unfortunately

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I mean it is not possible that anybody would switch from Yahoo to Google, which would actually cost Canonical money (0% of .10/search is still less than 100% of .05). I mean it would never happen. I am sure that many technical ppl still find Yahoo using MSN Bing to be a worthy engine.

Re:Unfortunately

[Sounder40]

Fortunately one Canonical employee is prepared to share what they know with us: from TFA:
  Rick Spencer, who announced the change back to Google, said that Canonical have decided to change back to Google after deciding that Google Search will be more familiar to a lot of users upgrading to Ubuntu 10.04...

Of course, you may choose not to believe that. But Canonical are providing an explanation.

If "familiarity" was the issue, then why move the fsck'ing window buttons to the upper left? I don't buy that as an argument.

Re:Unfortunately

[Anonymous Coward]

... except that 10.04 changes the UI layout

Re:Unfortunately

[dsavi]

I have to say I agree with you there, it seems like they made the change for the sake of being different. Mac OS X has an excuse, as I believe that the buttons have been on that side since the first GUI they created, correct?

Re:Unfortunately

[Anonymous Coward]

Left hand, meet right hand. Left, you know what Right is doing? Good. Congratulations, you guys are now more organized than the Ubuntu dev teams.

Re:Unfortunately

[segedunum]

If "familiarity" was the issue, then why move the fsck'ing window buttons to the upper left? I don't buy that as an argument.

Heh. Hey, if we copy off the Mac and make it look like a Mac, but, you know, don't go the whole hog and clone the whole Mac UI, because that would be, you know, silly, then maybe something......will happen? Clearly, they've got bitten by the bug that if they clone Mac OS X then that will solve all of their problems. Also, why bother to change the search to Yahoo if familiarity was ever important to them?

Personally, I think Canonical have gone nuts right now with the sorts of things they're coming out with. Maybe they have to find ways in which they can make money because they've now burned through Mark's cash?

Re:Unfortunately

[Runaway1956]

It could have been feedback from Ubuntu fans. I missed the switch to Yahoo - but if I had seen it, I would have weighed in with my disapproval. I haven't used Yahoo more than a few times in my life, for a reason. There is nothing I need, want, or like on Yahoo.

Re:Unfortunately

[Nerdfest]

I think all of this (the window button, the search engine, the colours) is to grab some media attention.

Re:Unfortunately

[dan828]

Really it's a non-issue. A couple of clicks and you're using the search engine of your choice anyways. I downloaded the ubuntu 10.4 beta the other day just to play with, and was mildly surprised that Yahoo came up as the default search engine. I spent all of 5 seconds thinking it must be some financial/political thing that I hadn't heard about, then changed it to Google. Most people savvy enough to use Linux can figure out how to change the settings in Firefox to what they want. People that don't know how, probably won't care, or are to busy wondering why the hell their computer guru son installed this damned weird OS on their computer to notice.

Re:Unfortunately

[Bert64]

The window buttons on the top left is nothing new...
AmigaOS had the close button on the top left, as has MacOS (and still does)..
Windows 3.1 also had the the menu (providing the close option) in the top left...
Unix window managers like SGI 4DWm were similar... I have a feeling CDE did the same too.

Ubuntu also offer an easy way to change back to the old behavior, something microsoft never offered when they changed the interface radically for windows 95..

Re:Unfortunately

[Bert64]

Many technical people, especially those using Linux as a desktop OS have a deep distrust of anything MS does and will avoid their products whenever possible.

Re:Unfortunately

[Compaqt]

Buttons on the left work on the Mac because OS/X windows don't have a menu in the window. The menus are on the top of the screen, hence aren't crammed in with the window control buttons.

Also the window title is centered, which makes for visual balance.

By contrast the weird concoction known as Lucid (aka, Opaque) has the menus, window control buttons, and title all in the top left of each window.

Re:Unfortunately

[Requiem18th]

I have a theory I posted in that legendary bug report, I'll just paste it down here:

I think Mark first rationale for the change was actually right and
overriding. He needs to clear the right corner to put something there
and he needs to do it 6 months in advance.

I can already sort of guess what it will be. Forget Esfera, it will be
some sort of live facebook chat/twitter feed/location broadcaster/ad
displayer, possibly.

The functionality is there, the calendar panel applet can stay open on
top of the windows already. And it really wouldn't work any other way,
the bottom corners are used by applications with either controls or the
status bar, and the top left side has the menus and the most used
toolbar buttons as well as the gnome menu bar.

So the best option if you want to put an always on top applet is to move
everything to the left, buttons AND title, to make room for it. It is in
fact such an obvious move that it makes sense to piss off almost
everybody to pull it off.

BUT

If I'm right, this is bad news already. Good functionality doesn't need
a preemptive strike 6 months ahead of time just to "soften" the targets,
bad functionality does.

It could be something so bad that people* will complain about it by
itself, let alone the title bar scramble, so Mark is attempting to
separate the criticisms, reordering the title bar now so that the future
complains would be limited to the new gimmick alone.

And of course there is the psychological trick of asking for a lot of
money before asking for less money as to make the second request seem
more reasonable.

So Mark was sincere the first time all along, he needs to make room for
functionality that's so compelling, it has to be introduced gradually.

* When I say people I mean the bleeding-edge, open to change,
ubuntu-loyal beta testing community that didn't like this change.

Re:Unfortunately

[Anonymous Coward]

I think going to Google was more related to not wanting to piss off the anti-microsoft crowd, who didn't like the Microsoft-Yahoo search deal. But that's just a wild guess. I probably would not have switched from Ubuntu for that alone, as it's easy enough to switch back, but after seeing that on the Alpha, I began to consider the alternatives.

Re:Unfortunately

[TheDarkener]

I think the fact is that Gnome has *always* had buttons on the right, despite any other desktop environments/window managers/operating systems. And Ubuntu has always standardized on Gnome. Why screw with it?? You're just upsetting users.

Re:Unfortunately

[gbjbaanb]

to be fair, even Windows has the exit button on the top left, you just have to double-click on it to make it work (which, in itself could be considered a good safety feature from accidentally single-clicking.)(Unfortunately single-clicking has a bug that makes it display some lines of text)

Re:Unfortunately

[DrXym]

If "familiarity" was the issue, then why move the fsck'ing window buttons to the upper left? I don't buy that as an argument.

Thankfully Ubuntu seem to have garnished a clue in respect to the position of the close button. Some themes put it in the left hand corner, some in the right and people have a choice to pick what they like. Most importantly the close button is always in the corner and not not shoved over by the absence or not of maximize & minimize buttons.

Re:Unfortunately

[kai_hiwatari]

Whatever they are saying about "familiarity" is just crap. Nobody will buy it. Its simply about money - Google outbid Yahoo.

Re:Unfortunately

[livewire98801]

if you change the pull down by the search bar at the top, it changes your home page. I was a bit surprised I didn't have to go into any preferences menus for it.

Re:Unfortunately

[mftb]

The window button movement has been justified as a mouse movement reducer - when the clickable elements of the menu bar are on the left and the window buttons are on the right, you have to move the mouse further to go from one to the other. Personally, I barely ever touch my mouse so it doesn't really concern me either way, but I can respect that decision as a genuine attempt to reduce the user's wasted interface time.

Re:Unfortunately

[aztracker1]

For all the Mac users switching. It's obvious with the new Windows 7 release being so popular that Canonical expects to see more converts from Mac this time around. Sheesh.

Re:Unfortunately

[aztracker1]

I stopped using Yahoo when signing up for a mail account meant you were distributed to spammer lists before you could opt out via the options screen. I remember around early 2001 or so, when signing up a friend for an account, went to the options to opt out of the marketing emails, but already had spam in the Inbox. I finally got around to converting everything to an address on my own domain and mail server, haven't looked back since.

Re:Unfortunately

[shutdown -p now]

Doesn't make sense, since the order of buttons themselves is different from OS X. In OS X, Close is leftmost. In new Ubuntu window theme, it's rightmost, and the overall order is same as in Windows. So they're confusing both Windows users (who expect buttons to be on the right), and OS X users (who expect different relative ordering of buttons).

It's like doing a usability study, and then picking the worst possible combination.

Re:Unfortunately

[Garridan]

No... I think they make the OS work the way they want it to. Because, y'know, they use it. This has been the nature of OSS since the dawn of... OSS, I guess.

I think the media makes much ado of nothing to grab reader attention.

Re:Unfortunately

[Yfrwlf]

Actually the close button is leftmost now and will stay leftmost, in the corner of the window where it normally is found on most any system which has any kind of button there. I always thought it was pretty silly how Windows did it, separating the close, minimize, and maximize buttons on the right side, but then putting them into a button/menu on the left side which could act as a close if double-clicked. They saw reasons for doing both schemes at once.

Fuck it, put buttons along the entire top of the window, that'll solve everything. :D

j/k...

Re:Unfortunately

[shutdown -p now]

Double-click on titlebar icon to close is a legacy of pre-95, where it was the only way to close.

Re:Unfortunately

[macshit]

Fortunately one Canonical employee is prepared to share what they know with us: from TFA: Rick Spencer, who announced the change back to Google, said that Canonical have decided to change back to Google after deciding that Google Search will be more familiar to a lot of users upgrading to Ubuntu 10.04...

Of course, you may choose not to believe that. But Canonical are providing an explanation.

If "familiarity" was the issue, then why move the fsck'ing window buttons to the upper left? I don't buy that as an argument.

I suspect "will be more familiar" is a polite way of saying "yahoo search sucks too much, and the money from Yahoo isn't worth the negative PR we'd get."

Though the public information is pretty mild, I imagine there was a huge fight about this within Canonical ...
"ooooh, finally, some income!"
"Yahoo search sucks, we'll be a laughing-stock."
"... but....income!!"
"Negative PR of Vista-like proportions!"
"...argh......but.....income....?"
"...Vista."
":-("

Re:Unfortunately

[mikechant]

If "familiarity" was the issue, then why move the fsck'ing window buttons to the upper left? I don't buy that as an argument.

Given that it's just a configuration issue, I wouldn't be surprised if this is just some form of 'kite-flying' and the buttons will be back in their 'normal' positions in the release candidate.

Re:Unfortunately

[Anonymous Coward]

Ubuntu also offer an easy way to change back to the old behavior, something microsoft never offered when they changed the interface radically for windows 95..

Wow, I hate to support MS but the facts speak for themselves.
MS did provide a way to run Program Manager (win 3.1 ui) instead of Explorer. It wasn't mouse-click easy, but it wasn't terribly hard either. Much like you can still run XP (and I think Vista) with the old 'Win 2k' interface (I've heard rumors they're scrapping that for Win 7 though?).

It appears MS supported Program Manager in Win 95, 98 and ME

Re:Unfortunately

[Anonymous Coward]

Ubuntu also offer an easy way to change back to the old behavior

No they don't, there isn't an option in the preferences for Appearance or Windows. And don't give me any of that crap about using gconf-editor or the CLI. Ubuntu is supposed to be Linux for humans not just computer geeks.

It probably doesn't matter

[blahbooboo]

If you're running Linux as your desktop OS, I suspect you have the necessary knowledge & skills to change the default search engine in your web browser

Re:It probably doesn't matter

[Skarecrow77]

Yeah, that's what struck me about this "news" item. anybody who'd bother to use linux as a desktop OS either is technologically inclined enough to change such a simple setting, or is recieving a computer set up but such a person. (here grandma, have a computer).

I guess it's a slow day? Let me know when they fix the new osx-esque window max/min/close config so that if I switch it back over to the right where it should be, the graphics aren't corrupted.

Re:It probably doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because you can do it, doesn't mean you have to be forced to do it. It's already annoying to set up up Firefox for a new user:
- add-ons
- plugins
- configere the above
- configure various conventional settings (tab behaviour, cache, etc.)
- mess with about:config (disable safebrowsing, etc.)
- install languages

Adding yet another item you have to consider every time doesn't exactly help.

Re:It probably doesn't matter

[blahbooboo]

I guess it's a slow day? Let me know when they fix the new osx-esque window max/min/close config so that if I switch it back over to the right where it should be, the graphics aren't corrupted.

Probably slow news day waiting for iPhone os announcement....

Re:It probably doesn't matter

[mqduck]

True enough... But isn't the goal of Ubuntu to be a GNU/Linux distro for everyone? That may not be the *reality*, but Ubuntu is an example of a project where of where we should try to avoid "anyone who's knowledgeable enough to..." kinds of arguments.

Re:It probably doesn't matter

[loonyjuice]

On the contrary, I recently updated my mothers pc to Ubuntu 10.04 and I got complaints that "Google was missing" and "What's Yahoo?". I did, of course, show her how to change it and to use the Google search bar. I'm thinking of confusing her again by installing Opera :)

Re:It probably doesn't matter

[gzipped_tar]

"A sane default" is one of the basic principles of software design. The default values usually reflect how well a designer understands the users.

However, I don't find it particularly newsworthy either.

Re:It probably doesn't matter

[E IS mC(Square)]

Or announcement on that latest New App on ipad?

Re:It probably doesn't matter

[punit_r]

If you're running Linux as your desktop OS, I suspect you have the necessary knowledge & skills to change the default search engine in your web browser

I think not many would take efforts to find that out.

I help administer a lab of ~20 computers with Ubuntu NIS/NFS setup. Although many users are comfortable with linux, not many are inquisitive enough to tweak around with settings.
e.g.,
1. Most users dont know how to change default programs to open a file. Say default acroread to open pdf files. This can be done by right click on any pdf file ->properties->open with and choose from radio button options
2. Many dont know about the keyboard shortcuts CTRL+L for direct access to firefox address bar and CTRL+K for search bar
3. Although many users prefer Thunderbird for emails, they are unaware of setting it as the default email client from System->Preferences->PreferredApplications
so on and so forth.

Hence, I think, defaults do matter.

Re:It probably doesn't matter

[Runaway1956]

"- mess with about:config (disable safebrowsing, etc.)"

OMGZ - you disable safebrowsing? Can't you get gonorrhea or something from that?

Re:It probably doesn't matter

[Cajun Hell]

If you're running Linux as your desktop OS..

Considering the distribution we're talking about (it's not Gentoo), you just said the equivalent of "If you're running a desktop personal computer, I suspect you have the necessary knowledge and skills..."

Re:It probably doesn't matter

[fbjon]

Maybe this is what they are considering: some (a lot of?) people would switch back to Google anyway, so they'd lose money on that.

Re:It probably doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Your mother's a dumb-ass.

Re:It probably doesn't matter

[Compaqt]

Well, Ubuntu claims to want to be "Linux for Human Beings".

Although, on the other hand, the switch to Yahoo gives just about the same user experience as Google for the average user. You type a search query, it gives you results, in the same green and blue colors, even.

I doubt many average users would even care to change, but if they did, the UI to change it to Google is right there out in front, and only takes a single click.

Definitely not like the moving of the window controls, which does in fact change the user experience; average users are likely to want to change it; and average users are unlikely to know how to or to want to mess with Gconf to move them back and have them still messed up because the graphics are only meant for a single order of the buttons.

Re:It probably doesn't matter

[Shikaku]

https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/2109

FEBE makes this a quick backup and restore process. It will back up just about everything for you.

Useful for portable versions of firefox as well.

Re:It probably doesn't matter

[BrokenHalo]

But isn't the goal of Ubuntu to be a GNU/Linux distro for everyone?

Any distro can be for "everyone". A few years ago, I had my wife running Slackware perfectly happily until she decided she needed to be able to use EndNote to handle the bibliographic stuff in her PhD thesis, so she went over to Mac.

With a bit of thought put into the setup, I could have set her up with a version of Linux From Scratch, and she would (a) have been none the wiser and (b) been able to get on perfectly well with her work.

Re:It probably doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

click down arrow on search box. Select desired search engine.

yep, I got the necessary skillz to haxorz meh search enginez!

Re:It probably doesn't matter

[jimcooncat]

I disagree. I set up computers for people that have had no or little previous exposure to computers, and I set them up with Linux because it's easier for them to learn. Though I'm now moving to Debian, some of my first victims -- I meant users -- were first exposed to default Ubuntu and Xubuntu installs. You know what? They were able to email, browse the web, and play games with very little help from me.

For something like changing the default search engine, they would give me a call and I'd ssh/vnc into their machine and make the changes; they would watch and sometimes learn how to do it next time. Sometimes they wouldn't.

No longer can you assume that linux users have a clue. I feel it is much harder to use (and maintain) a Windows system. Unless you've had years of exposure to Windows, that is.

Re:It probably doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

i'm sorry, have you met ubuntu users?

Re:It probably doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

I've got my grandma on a mac and my mom on ubuntu. Soon I'll move my grandma to ubuntu also.

Time to stop making stupid assumptions about who's using what.

Re:It probably doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

Not sure. I have also installed it for a couple of people that is not able to tell the difference between Windows and Ubuntu.. From my experience Ubuntu tends to be more problem free for them.

Re:It probably doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

You're obviously not familiar with most Ubuntu users..

Re:It probably doesn't matter

[shaitand]

Why would you assume that? Provided you are using compatible hardware Linux is probably the most user friendly desktop OS available.

Re:It probably doesn't matter

[turbotroll]

If you're running Linux as your desktop OS, I suspect you have the necessary knowledge & skills to change the default search engine in your web browser

Perhaps back in 1997. Now, not necessarily, no.

Re:It probably doesn't matter

[FoolishOwl]

1. Look at the search bar, to the right of the address bar.
2. Find the triangle, and click on it.
3. Pick the search engine you want.
4. This choice will persist between sessions.

Total time to fix the problem: two seconds.

Re:It probably doesn't matter

[ProfessionalCookie]

Even if your not a linux user, it's just a one liner in the terminal to get it back to the right search engine. *ducks*

Re:It probably doesn't matter

[somersault]

Didn't know those shortcuts either, thanks. Ctrl-l works in Chrome too, and it doesn't need a separate search menu as the address bar doubles as the menu.. actually I do use keyboard shortcuts all the time for opening and closing tabs anyway, and when you open a new tab the address bar is autofocused so perhaps knowing this shortcut is a little pointless anyway.

Re:It probably doesn't matter

[somersault]

Yeah.. I used to be very used to top left clicking for closing from Amiga Workbench and Mac OS.. took a while to adjust to using the other side.. good thing you can close most windows with control w and usually whole apps with ctrl-q anyway.. though I don't know the shortcuts to switch in and out of maximised window views in Ubuntu, but if you're doing those things you're likely going to be using the mouse for moving the window around anyway.

Re:It probably doesn't matter

[aztracker1]

Ubuntu/gnome tends to use a lot of the same shortcuts that windows does... would try the typical alt or ctrl+tab, super + up/down/left/right etc to see if they work okay. I don't mind it so much, as many of the keys work... I tend to bind super+[ (volume down) super+] (volume up) super+\ (mute toggle) since my keyboard doesn't have media keys, other than that I get along okay.

Re:It probably doesn't matter

[somersault]

Oh yep I use alt-tab anyway, though had forgotten about control tab (and for tabbed apps you can often use control or alt plus a number to switch tabs). I have super left/right bound to switch my desktops, and I do already have volume keys on my keyboard above the numpad, but no other generic media keys so I've bound my extra function keys (it's an Apple keyboard) to do some media control stuff.

Re:It probably doesn't matter

[cynicist]

Why is this insightful? My mom uses Linux and she would have no idea how to do this. You are assuming that everyone who has linux has installed it themselves...

Re:It probably doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt that. How many people use ubuntu as a web browser on their netbooks? What about as an office box for office work in the government.

Re:It probably doesn't matter

[blakedev]

Keep in mind, the article refers to Ubuntu.

Re:It probably doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

If you even care enough, I know how to use keywords, I'll stick with whichever search engine is paying canonical the most and still get the results i want on the first page (unless they use bing, the only thing bing is good for is searching for google chrome)

Re:It probably doesn't matter

[Anonymous Coward]

It's easier to bitch slap some asshole developer at a convention until they bleed on the carpet.

Re:It probably doesn't matter

[drinkypoo]

2. Many dont know about the keyboard shortcuts CTRL+L for direct access to firefox address bar and CTRL+K for search bar

I sure didn't, but ALT+D also jumps to the address bar. I've been tabbing from there all this time :)

Re:It probably doesn't matter

[Fri13]

My mother does not even know what is the web browser (or Internet search engine). She still reads multiple websites daily. And she does have Linux as OS in her computer. Just changed distro from Ubuntu to openSUSE for faster speed and for better backages for her use.

Linux has be ready for mainstream now since 1995. Problem for its popularity has not be in the Linux OS (you can not see it) but the GNU/Linux propaganda and mostly, the user interfaces (like Gnome) and lack of needed special apps. And because MS could lock users to itself, having a dominant market position what to abuse. There has not be any good changes for Linux before few years ago. Canonical just happened to come littlebit later than all the software for daily use was developed. And desktops were starting to have good usability. Nothing special didn't Canonical add to the palet, just happened to be a new distribution with good marketing point from rich man who founded the Canonical and distrohoppers and new users happened to catch Ubuntu before any other as good distro. And same thing is even valid today. Nothing special in Ubuntu, just fame.

And that fame does not give anything special knowledge how to change internet search engine in your browser. You need to know how to actually do it and what the internet search engine is. And Linux has nothing to do with that task.

A good sign?

[DoofusOfDeath]

The switch to Yahoo was due to a revenue sharing deal. The switch back to Google was (reportedly) to stick users with a more "familiar" default.

So it sounds like Canonical is putting users first, which strikes me as a very good policy in the long-term, if they want to grow the user base.

Re:A good sign?

[HarrySquatter]

The switch back to Google was (reportedly) to stick users with a more "familiar" default.

So it sounds like Canonical is putting users first, which strikes me as a very good policy in the long-term, if they want to grow the user base.

Such a quaint and naive view. The real reason is that Google offered more than Yahoo hence they decided not to go to Yahoo.

Re:A good sign?

[DoofusOfDeath]

Such a quaint and naive view. The real reason is that Google offered more than Yahoo hence they decided not to go to Yahoo.

Such a cynical and presumptive point of view, unless you have evidence. What do you have to back up your claim?

Re:A good sign?

[Anonymous Coward]

[citation needed]

Re:A good sign?

[QBasicer]

Pretty hard to put users first if you've gone broke.

Re:A good sign?

[raju1kabir]

Common sense ought to be sufficient. If "familiarity" was such an overriding concern then the change wouldn't have been made in the first place. If it suddenly became a concern, then they could easily have told people how to change the default search engine with a couple clicks.

The only explanation that adds up is that Yahoo offered more than Google, then Google offered more than Yahoo, and part of the new Google deal was that they wouldn't publicly discuss the details of the deal.

Re:A good sign?

[DoofusOfDeath]

Common sense ought to be sufficient.

Certainly sufficient for questions to be raised. But given Canonical's generally decent track record with openness, I'm not ready to assume any nefarious, secretive dealings. For example, they did mention the revenue-sharing deal with Yahoo.

All I'm saying is that we shouldn't merely assume that Canonical is hiding something here. But we probably should ask them about it.

Re:A good sign?

[Anonymous Coward]

Common sense ought to be sufficient.

It never is. The phrase is practically an oxymoron.

Re:A good sign?

[segedunum]

Such a cynical and presumptive point of view, unless you have evidence. What do you have to back up your claim?

Why would he need that? Canonical dug a hole by agreeing a revenue sharing deal with Yahoo. At a time when, by all accounts, they need to start raking in come cash you don't exactly need to be Mr. Cynicism to question that they are now dumping said revenue because of 'user familiarity'. As Mark Shuttleworth has already said, Ubuntu and Canonical are not democracies.

Re:A good sign?

[noahm]

Well, you realize that Google is the default in the upstream (non-ubuntu branded) firefox browser because they contribute 90% of the Mozilla Foundation's revenue, right? [1] Clearly, Google sees a lot of value in partnerships like this. I don't think anybody would argue that Yahoo!'s spending power is greater than Google's. So, if Google sees value in something, they have the money to take it. It's not cynical, it's a business reality.

noah

1. http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9120866/Google_deal_produces_88_of_Mozilla_s_revenue (Yeah, it's somewhat dated. Please feel free to dig up something newer.)

Re:A good sign?

[TheDarkener]

As Mark Shuttleworth has already said, Ubuntu and Canonical are not democracies.

I'm so sick of this "Oh, Marky-mark said they're not a democracy" stuff. Seriously. Don't you think that people know that? What's important is that Ubuntu is open source. Now I'm not trying to say that every open source project should stick true to non-open source license practices, but it kind of goes hand in hand in most situations, and I feel that the community has grown accustomed to the general morals and ethics that most projects and developers follow. I know, I'm probably going to get flamed and modded down to hell and back, but it just feels to me that Canonical has been pushing things in Ubuntu that the community at large doesn't agree with.

Examples? Mmmk.

- Use 'sudo' instead of 'su'
- PulseAudio (I do agree that this was a good idea but it was premature imho)
- Firefox 3.0 Beta5 in 8.04 LTS (Beta software in an LTS??)
- Ditch Sun Java in favor of IcedTea, Sun version not even in the repos
- Window utility (min/max/close) buttons on left corner in 10.04
- Gnome panel applets such as indicator/indicator session tied to volume control..??
- Not including Gimp in default install anymore to "make room for Ubuntu features and content" (Uhm..Gimp takes 5MB)
- Change Google search to Yahoo (I'm not arguing WHY they did this btw)

And after all of these, I have always felt the Ubuntu release cycle was horrible. Even after an LTS version is released, the devs I've talked to no longer discuss it much, but start putting all effort toward the next release cycle. LTS gets no real love or attention for those who need stability and consistency.

I wonder how the Ubuntu community will hold up after Shuttleworth is out of cash.

Re:A good sign?

[jtgeibel]

So it sounds like Canonical is putting users first, which strikes me as a very good policy in the long-term, if they want to grow the user base.

I always wondered if Canonical would run into issues around Firefox trademarks. I know that Mozilla policy is sensitive with regards to what things downstream can change and still use the Firefox trademark. In particular they want to make sure that downstream vendors are not shipping buggy features and tarnishing the Firefox brand. I would expect that shipping a Firefox derivative that did not default to the Google search engine would not make Mozilla (or Google) happy. This is why I was so surprised when Canonical first announced the change to Yahoo.

Re:A good sign?

[segedunum]

I'm so sick of this "Oh, Marky-mark said they're not a democracy" stuff. Seriously. Don't you think that people know that? What's important is that Ubuntu is open source.

This has got nothing to do with whether Ubuntu is open source or not. Canonical gets hard revenue from the search engine that they ship as a default in Ubuntu, and where those decisions are concerned Canonical is not going to look at things for the 'good of users' as is being claimed here. That's exactly what Mark Shuttleworth meant.

I wonder how the Ubuntu community will hold up after Shuttleworth is out of cash.

Well quite, because that's what this is bout.

Re:A good sign?

[mikechant]

I always wondered if Canonical would run into issues around Firefox trademarks. I know that Mozilla policy is sensitive with regards to what things downstream can change and still use the Firefox trademark.

I thought from the Iceweasel case that it was fairly clear that the issue was code changes, not config changes like this one.

But why?

[Monkeedude1212]

Perhaps "the brains" over at Canonical decided to finally listen to the open source community that provides the backbone of their business.

Re:But why?

[game kid]

Or maybe they just felt lucky.

Re:But why?

[f8l_0e]

That just inspired me to do an "i'm feeling lucky" search for "Worlds best search engine". This is what came up.

Re:But why?

[r_jensen11]

Dogpile and Excite still exist?

Re:But why?

[SalsaDoom]

Thats not it.

If that was true, they would change the buttons on gnome back to the way it is on every other distro.

Ummm..... Thank you.

[tpstigers]

There's not really anything else to say about it.

What's the big deal?

[mayberry42]

it's just a bloody search engine. How is this newsworthy (even for /.)?

Re:What's the big deal?

[dsavi]

I would argue that defaults are very important, and cause things like the IE6 effect. I would argue that, but I don't actually believe it as Ubuntu has only about 12 million users, most of which are more than able to change it from the default.

Re:What's the big deal?

[Anonymous Coward]

it's just a bloody search engine. How is this newsworthy (even for /.)?

I don't think there's a single news item that doesn't have this discussion. Is Slashdot really so overloaded with news items that the selection needs to be narrowed down?

Even if minor points such as this one interest only a handful, it doesn't exactly come at a huge cost to everybody else.

So, what's the big deal? :)

Re:What's the big deal?

[dswensen]

Don't you understand? The world must know that he disapproves!

Re:What's the big deal?

[Compaqt]

>How is this newsworthy (even for /.)?

1. Slashdot is news for nerds.
2. Most nerds run Linux (some of the time, at least) or like to think about running Linux.
3. The top Linux distro now is Ubuntu.
4. Recently, Ubuntu has been making a lot of decisions perceived by the community as unjustified. This has led to angst in the community because it feels that Canonical is unresponsive to the very people who work for free contributing its success, and because the community feels that Canonical's unilateral decisions are impeding the uptake of Linux, and the Year of the Linux Desktop, which is a nerd goal.
5. The relenting by Canonical on the Yahoo/Google thing seems to indicate that Ubuntu will listen to the community after all, next year will be the Year of the Linux Desktop, and we shall overcome the Borg.

Comprendez?

Re:What's the big deal?

[TangoMargarine]

Agreed. What the heck is the term "default search engine" even supposed to refer to? If you type some random text in the address bar and hit enter, where it goes? I don't see why anybody would even do that, with the searchbar thingie on the right having selectable search engines and all. Or if you really feel the need to type queries in the address bar, there's the whole "add keyword for this search" thing.

And This Impacts... How Many People, Long Term?

[RobotRunAmok]

If you're geek enough to be running a Linux distro in the first place, chances are you've always eyed the default settings -- particularly on something as critical as search -- very carefully, and made your adjustments promptly after your install. Ubuntu-using Google fans have no doubt been changing their default back to Google regularly, just as the Yahoo fans will now change their defaults.

Hopefully, Canonical got a lot of money from Google for this.

Hopefully, they've already cashed the check...

For crying out loud...

[Angst Badger]

Stuff like this erodes my faith in humanity. No, not that companies make these little placement deals. It's that these little placement deals actually matter because the overwhelming majority of users are too dumb or apathetic to figure out that the search engines and their ordering are easily configurable -- using a handy, point-and-drool GUI interface, no less.

I can't say I didn't see it coming. Around 1996, when I had AOL users complaining that the articles on my website were "cut off at the bottom of the screen", and I had to explain scrollbars to them, I should have found another career, preferably one that involved frequent use of explosives and heavy earthmoving equipment.

Re:For crying out loud...

[introspekt.i]

If people only choose from the top 10 or so results from any search engine, and they make fairly generic searches, search engine choice shouldn't matter to much. For popular things, they all return approximately the same thing (in my experience, not in the same order, but they're mostly all there on the front page). People who are persnickety and make special searches a lot likely have a favored engine and will change the settings to match their needs. Most people want to configure their computer to do things about as much as they want to change the oil in their car.

Re:For crying out loud...

[pushing-robot]

Around 1996, when I had AOL users complaining that the articles on my website were "cut off at the bottom of the screen", and I had to explain scrollbars to them, I should have found another career, preferably one that involved frequent use of explosives and heavy earthmoving equipment.

Why bother changing careers?

Re:For crying out loud...

[NeoSkandranon]

If you're so easily irritated i for one am glad your career has nothing to do with explosives or heavy equipment ;)

Re:For crying out loud...

[Terrasque]

If you're so easily irritated i for one am glad your career has nothing to do with explosives or heavy equipment ;)

After about two weeks on an internet help desk, you'd even see Dalai Lama frothing at the mouth, waving around a double-barred shotgun threatening to teach those idiots what Double Click really meant.

After two months you'd see the heavy onset of apathy coming on, and after two years your brain will automatically shut off when talking to a customer, and your questions and responses will be entirely mechanical. Either that, or you're insane.

You should not underestimate the weapon-grade stupidity many IT people are exposed to daily.

Give us a choice! Let us pick!

[Anonymous Coward]

The first time Firefox is started up, it should display several popular search engines in a random order, and then let the user select the one to use as a default.

It's very much like the approach that Microsoft has been forced to use in Europe, to allow the user to select the default web browser (rather than just defaulting to IE).

Re:Give us a choice! Let us pick!

[atisss]

That's a good option. Or create "randomsearch.org" which would redirect to random search engine each time, thus giving users option to feel different engines and later choose one.

Re:Give us a choice! Let us pick!

[BrokenHalo]

The first time Firefox is started up, it should display several popular search engines in a random order, and then let the user select the one to use as a default.

Or you could just let people find out for themselves. After all, if they've never heard of Google, let alone any of the other search engines, then they probably have little business being on the net. In my case, I don't bother with FF's search box at all. I just use a local homepage with a simple table of links for a whole bunch of my most-frequented sites, the most prominent of which leads directly to a Google advanced search.

Re:Give us a choice! Let us pick!

[natehoy]

Why? No, seriously, why?

Canonical is a for-profit business that builds a seriously kick-ass distro of Linux, and they put a lot of work into doing so, and they give it to you for free. They even let other smart people use their hard work to build derivatives like Mint.

If they can make a few sheckles from setting the default search engine in their distro, when anyone with opposable thumbs and an IQ over 50 can click on the search engine logo and choose another one, why should they be going to the trouble of programming a random-order list?

If they took away the choice list, or blocked all search engines but their "preferred" one, OK, I could see an objection. If choosing a new search engine was as hard as downloading and installing a browser, I could see an objection. But this is literally a two-mouseclick choice. Other than the "in random order" part, Ubuntu already provides exactly what you propose.

Re:Give us a choice! Let us pick!

[turbotroll]

Why? No, seriously, why?

Canonical is a for-profit business that builds a seriously kick-ass distro of Linux

They hardly build anything. Their business model is essentially ripping off Debian.

Re:Give us a choice! Let us pick!

[ancientt]

I don't see any mod point assignments so I'm not sure. Are you trying to be funny?

Re:Give us a choice! Let us pick!

[Yfrwlf]

Yeeeeeeeaaaaahh. No.

Especially no to Bing. Don't get me wrong, all of them need competition, but just not...evil competition...from evil companies...lol.

Re:Give us a choice! Let us pick!

[blakedev]

that builds a seriously kick-ass distro of Linux, and they put a lot of work into doing so, and they give it to you for free.

I can't stop laughing at this part of your reply.

Re:Give us a choice! Let us pick!

[turbotroll]

I don't see any mod point assignments so I'm not sure. Are you trying to be funny?

Do you really find it difficult to deduct, are trying to be sarcastic, or disagree with me?

Re:Give us a choice! Let us pick!

[ancientt]

In this case I honestly couldn't tell. When I think of repackaging and redistributing, it is the heard of every Linux distribution from the kernel and all the GNU stuff right on up through the package managers. Ubuntu has contributed quite a bit to the popularization of Linux in general and certainly to the feedback on what average users need to use it successfully as a home workstation. I've used both, and while neither is really what I personally prefer, I'd recommend Ubuntu in a heartbeat to a newbie over Debian, not because it is "better" but because they find it easier.

All that said, you could easily be writing satirically if you have the same perspective, or you could be thinking of all the development and testing that the Debian team does and considering it unreasonable that people overlook that when it comes to Ubuntu.

Re:Give us a choice! Let us pick!

[b4dc0d3r]

Debian's business model is to provide a quality product that other companies can rip off. So that kinda evens things out.

Canonical has found a way to make money to support its work (and maybe profit too, I don't know), fully respecting the license agreement Debian provided. Not that Debian has much choice if they want to distribute Linux, but it's what they provided. As long as you don't step on trademarks, ripoff isn't even an insult in this context.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ripoff
"3. a copy or imitation."

Sure it has a negative connotation, but that #3 definition is quite neutral in its denotation. I'll assume you're using that meaning, in the given context.

Re:Give us a choice! Let us pick!

[Virtual_Raider]

The first time Firefox is started up, it should display several popular search engines in a random order, and then let the user select the one to use as a default.

It's very much like the approach that Microsoft has been forced to use in Europe, to allow the user to select the default web browser (rather than just defaulting to IE).

Seriously Ballmer, wtf? If you go aaaaall the way up to the search bar and type on the little triangle arrow thingie next to the Google search box you get a drop down menu with several other engines. There, I have magnanimously given you what evil Mozilla corporation had wrongly denied you all this years. No, don't thank me, its a comunity service.

Re:Give us a choice! Let us pick!

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? No, seriously, why?

Canonical is a for-profit business that builds a seriously kick-ass distro of Linux,

If by 'kick ass distro' you mean 'a really badly patched mixture of Debian sid and testing that annoys the crap out of its users every 6 months', then you are correct.

Otherwise, Ubuntu is shit and it is getting worse.

Well...

[mix77]

I hope this regression bug fix stays lucid!

The only solution

[daranz]

I recommend that at install time, the user is presented with a window containing randomly ordered buttons for 6 of the top web search engines on the market today. By selecting one of the buttons, the user makes that search engine the default. This should keep everything fair and everyone happy.

(now we just need to find 6 search engines that people actually use)

Re:The only solution

[SharpFang]

1. piratebay.org torrent search
2. redtube
3. cracks.am ...

Re:The only solution

[macbuzz01]

I've got em:

google.com
images.google.com
video.google.com
maps.google.com
news.google.com
shopping.google.com

Re:The only solution

[will.perdikakis]

I believe that this is exactly what Chrome does upon install.

Re:The only solution

[shutdown -p now]

shopping.google.com

I think you've missed the mark on this particular one - it's http://www.bing.com/cashback nowadays.

Sorry, I think it should be...

[macbeth66]

http://www.ubuntu.com/

If I know enough to use Linux ( Ubuntu ) then I should be smart enough to know how to change the default page.

Besides, what the heck is wrong with a little self promotion?

Re:Sorry, I think it should be...

[Nerdfest]

I wish people would stop saying this. Linux, in the form of Ubuntu and other distros, is as easy to use as Windows in most cases, and even easier in some cases.

Re:Sorry, I think it should be...

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem isn't us, good sir. It's all the noobs that the distribution is harboring because of its reputation as the easiest Linux (and the chained reputation of Linux as a virus free Operating System.) Remember that Ubuntu is the new Mandrake?

Seeing /. posts where John Q Techie get fed up with their parents / wives and install Ubuntu, it will make sense. While we want to once and for all put a stop to frequent spyware repair "housecalls," there is a danger of AOLizing the distribution, and further alienating its original users away. I would say we might almost say "just compare these users with Mac ones and see how your expectations for MUCH of the user base is lowered."

I'll take the chance to gripe that 9.04 is my last release. I got pretty pissed when I saw that the 10.04 ISO I wanted to test added more GUI features than necessary items. In particular, no Linux has ever been able to provide a working Network Neighborhood where noobs can read Windows shares. How can I visit a friend and share files wirelessly if I need to do forum searches, find that SMB browsers never work (pyNeighborhood sortof shows computers, and then just fails to connect) snoop for IP addresses and hostnames, screw around with /etc/fstab, CIFS and maybe symlinks to /mnt/sharenames manually, reboot, and then find that there's a bug that prevents you from shutting down after you've done all the work?

I would get a Mac, but I also gotta think about causal visitors failing to understand it, and also that macs are expensive and don't run all the software. My suggestion is to test Centos 5.4, though it too leaves much to be desired in features that can be added on post install.

Re:Sorry, I think it should be...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, that just isn't true at all.

Re: Saw it coming

[TaoPhoenix]

Did you see it coming enough to make a couple of good stock calls? In hindsight it would have only taken about 4:
Buy MS in 1994 just before Win95.
Buy Yahoo and Google in 1995.
Buy Apple around 1999.
Sell Yahoo in 2001 just before the crash.
Sell MS around 2002 just after Win XP
Sell Apple = pending TBD.

Only one?

[Thyamine]

Maybe I'm the only one, but I never use the search box. I just have Google as my home page, so I'm just a new tab away from my preferred search anyways. And with Chrome I don't even need to wait for the page to load now.

Re:Only one?

[reedk]

You're not the only one. I set my home page to Google years ago when MS was trying to trump up hit counts for MSN. Too lazy to ever adopt to the search bar. My search bar is "CTRL-T." Using Chrome is making me re-think that too - the Speed dial page would make a nice home page (hat tip to Opera).

Re:Only one?

[SharpFang]

My home page is about:blank. If I need a new tab for something else than a search, I don't want to wait for Google to load, fight with the stop button and risk my absolutely hated: paste URL into the URL bar and have it replaced by Firefox upon finishing loading of the current page.

Re:Only one?

[will.perdikakis]

Does that even happen in FF when you open a new tab? I know that happens every single time I paste a link in IE, but not FF.

Re:Only one?

[the_one(2)]

Wow... you have time to hit the stop button before google is loaded?!

Re:Only one?

[discord5]

I just have Google as my home page

Lucky you, I have an intranet page mandatory by corporate policy, which insists on resizing my browser to the size of the first screen of my desktop. Not instantly though, it waits just the right amount of time for me to drag my mouse to the title bar to move the window and then resizes. After 4 years of that horrid experience it still gets me every time I open up that page.

Maybe I'm the only one, but I never use the search box.

I never used the search box until I figured out that you can hack opensearch stuff into it. I built a webinterface with product listings for internal use, and there's a certain amount of joy in seeing people just typing what they're looking for in the search bar instead of seeing them wade through a menu, sigh, click on the search page, sigh again, type in the product number or name. I know, it would be a lot easier to just provide that search bar from the start in the index page, but the gods of house-style of spoken: "THOU SHALT CLICK THREE TIMES, OR SEARCH BE NOT FOR YE".

Also, the python documentation reference search is a single click away, which is something that I happen to use a lot when prototyping stuff. I don't use python on a daily basis (yeah I know, shame on me), so it's easy to just have it right there when I need it.

Re:Only one?

[Anonymous Coward]

better yet you could make a homepage with a google search box and store it on your machine.

Re:Only one?

[Zalminen]

Opening a new tab in Firefox already opens a blank page, not the home page...

I'm fairly sure this is even the default setting.

Re:Only one?

[SharpFang]

It does. The moment isn't exactly when the page ends loading but somewhere along the way, but it's frequent enough on a slow netbook.

Another cute case is when it shows "Search bookmarks and History" hint in dim grey text in the URL bar, you focus the bar, and it allows you to edit that text, type the URL in the same dim grey text, and blatantly ignore it when you press enter or go. Unfocus and focus the bar again, and your newly typed URL vanishes, and you can type it again, this time in proper dark text, and get the reaction too.

This is especially notorious if you fullscreen (F11), open the tab with Ctrl-T and focus the bar with F6, no mouse involved.

Canonical actually did this pretty fairly

[TheSpoom]

I use the 10.04 beta, and did when it used Yahoo as the default as well. Canonical actually made it so if you changed your default search engine in the search box on the upper right, it would actually change the home page back to a Google search rather than a Yahoo one as well.

I'm quite sure both of these are simply escalating revenue sharing deals, but nobody can make the argument that Canonical was trying to force us over to Yahoo.

Re: Saw it coming

[Anonymous Coward]

You're full of shit. M$ stock prices have been plummeting for years.

Why did they ever have Yahoo?

[argent]

Has Yahoo EVER been the preferred search engine? By ANYONE?

As far as I can recall the least sucky search choice before Google was Altavista, and before that Lycos.

Re:Why did they ever have Yahoo?

[wisnoskij]

They would of gotten some revenue sharing with Yahoo.

Re:Why did they ever have Yahoo?

[Compaqt]

I realize the Yahoo homepage is pretty cluttered (though it's better than it was before).

But Yahoo search is pretty good. In some cases it delivers more interesting results than Google. And the "more" button delivers a great subjectwise categorization of results.

Check it out:

http://search.yahoo.com/

Re:Why did they ever have Yahoo?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've used Yahoo since the mid 90's. Where was Google then?

Yahoo! does everything I want it to do. Except for Google Earth, I don't get why Google is any better.

Re:Why did they ever have Yahoo?

[argent]

I've used Yahoo since the mid 90's. Where was Google then?

What part of "Altavista" and "Lycos" did you miss?

Re: Saw it coming

[guyminuslife]

Buy Google in 1995?

"[Google] was first incorporated as a privately held company on September 4, 1998, with its initial public offering to follow on August 19, 2004."

He must have really seen it coming.

Also, by "the crash" are you referring to the dot-com bust? 'Cause I think you might want to sell in 2000, not 2001.

Re: Saw it coming

[barzok]

Buy Yahoo and Google in 1995.

Buying stock in a company 2 years before it was created, and 9 years before its IPO, would be one hell of an achievement.

Would have been Firefox with clean installs only

[TejWC]

Do note that the Yahoo change was going to effect Firefox users. Konqueror, Arora and all other browsers users were not affected in the first place.
Also, if you upgraded from 9.10 to 10.04 and were using Google back in 9.10, Google stayed as your default search engine.

I think the real reason why Ubuntu went back to Google is because Google has too much branding over the idea of searching the web. Nobody says "just Yahoo! that". Shockingly enough, there are people who are new to the web and do not even know what Yahoo! is but has heard of Google. Remember, Canonical true goal is Linux on the desktop for everybody; even users who are new to computers.

We can hold our heads high again

[elewton]

I've installed Ubuntu on a number of friends' computers, at their request. The main reason they like it is that it's not the store-brand poor man's alternative, as Yahoo is to Google.

Letting them see me switching from Yahoo to Google would just look retarded. Like Ubuntu couldn't afford Google, but had the next best thing.

Re:We can hold our heads high again

[bsDaemon]

Yeah, not being able to afford free would look pretty lame.

Smart move

[IGnatius T Foobar]

Smart move. Ubuntu has figured out that most Linux users will (correctly) follow this line of thought:
  1. Yahoo == Bing
  2. Bing == Microsoft
  3. If Ubuntu search == Yahoo, then Ubuntu == sucks

Re:Smart move

[yelvington]

But wouldn't it be sweet if Microsoft were paying Ubuntu for every copy of Linux distributed? And then we all just changed the search back to Google anyway? I know I'd like it.

Re:Smart move

[Anonymous Coward]

Certainly you mean:

Ubuntu = sucks

or even:

Ubuntu := sucks

Re:Smart move

[yuhong]

Makes me sad that schestowitz don't comment on slashdot anymore.

Re:Smart move

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd hope most Linux users realise all the major search engines suck equally and use alternatives that respect their privacy.

Re:Smart move

[Anonymous Coward]

You lost me at ==. Is there an XML equivalent?

Re:Smart move

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I need to translate this...
if(Yahoo == Bing && Bing == Microsoft)
{
        if(Ubuntu Search == Yahoo)
                boolean useUbuntu = false;
}
return useUbuntu;

Re:Smart move

[Aphoxema]

But wouldn't it be sweet if Microsoft were paying Ubuntu for every copy of Linux distributed? And then we all just changed the search back to Google anyway? I know I'd like it.

But they wouldn't be paying Conanical, users would be paying Microsoft through ad revenue.

Of course, Microsoft trying the search thing doesn't bother me. I'm actually starting to hate Microsoft less than Apple now because Microsoft is acting like any corporation would while Apple's acting like a deity.

Re:Smart move

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny, I was thinking:
    3. Microsoft giving money to Ubuntu == rocks

Re:Smart move

[Anonymous Coward]

But they wouldn't, Yahoo would be paying Canonical for the generated search traffic, Yahoo would benefit from more ad revenue, but Yahoo would also pay Microsoft for use of their search engine. This is just my speculation on how the deals work, but it doesn't make sense that it would work any other way. I can't see how it would result in Microsoft paying Canonical for every Ubuntu user, I certainly can't see why they would pay anything if they weren't getting more revenue as a result.

But yeah, I suppose it would be kinda sweet if Microsoft were paying Canonical for distributing Ubuntu, but unfortunately that wouldn't happen unless it somehow benefited Microsoft.

Yes We Can!

[Anonymous Coward]

Cynical is the new Quaint. All the cool kids are naive idealists now.

Looks like the check cleared.

[mdm-adph]

Or they got that thing I sent them.

Ah Ubuntu the Windows of Linux

[Anonymous Coward]

Ubuntu is the Windows of Linux, as such I have to bet on it (for the desktop) against all other Linuxes.

(Wow, apparently Linuxes is in the FireFox dictionary, Ubuntu is not.)

Re:Ah Ubuntu the Windows of Linux

[Hawke666]

Wouldn't the plural be Linuces?

Budget Issues

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't buy that as an argument.

That's because it's a strictly financial issue to buy that argument. As I get it, you didn't receive any money for your planned reasoning acquisitions.
I don't buy it either; I'd really love to, though..... If I only had the money to buy Canonicals arguments. Who should I hope for?

Hear that Google?

They probably switched because of quality issues

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I used the Yahoo search for a few hours on the beta, and it SUCKS. No wonder they went back. The information I needed was never at the top, where on what I wanted was generally in the top 3 results. Bing at least has some redeeming features for more specialized searches, but those don't exist in Yahoo, so it ends up just sucking.

Firefox can keep its bodily functions to itself

[GoodNicksAreTaken]

...change the default search in Firefox that comes Ubuntu 10.04 to Yahoo! from Google.

Apparently I haven't been watching enough Discovery channel as I've never heard of this type of fox procreation before. Does a Firefox come Ubuntu when you Google it or only when you get it to Yahoo?

Re:Firefox can keep its bodily functions to itself

[Stupendoussteve]

A wild Firefox appeared!

Yahoo! used Slash... It's super effective!

Trainer throws Pokeball.

Firefox was captured!

What?!? Firefox is evolving! Firefox has evolved into... Ubuntu!

Re:Firefox can keep its bodily functions to itself

[Anonymous Coward]

>> ...change the default search in Firefox that comes Ubuntu 10.04 to Yahoo! from Google.

> Apparently I haven't been watching enough Discovery channel as I've never heard of this type of fox procreation before. Does a Firefox come Ubuntu when you Google it or only when you get it to Yahoo?

Man, you have a very dirty mind. How can you speak like that in public? What if some girl is reading your message?

I believe

[SharpFang]

I believe that simply Google offered them more money than Yahoo.

It took some time for the corporate gears to grind the information "Free software picks a Bing-based competitor instead of us... we must be doing something wrong. They made the switch for money. How much were we paying them again?"

Google search ain't so good anymore

[phorm]

Has anyone else notice that google's search is actually starting to become a bit spammed out? I love most of big G's services, but searching seems to have become somewhat of an abysmal exercise of hunt-and-dig through sites that are massively spamming for key-words. I'm not talking about those like experts-exchange either, but rather the thousands of throwaway-domains that pop up in the top search results (especially for less common searches, like programming stuff), yet other than spammed keywords, have NOTHING to do with what you were searching for.

Maybe Google needs some way to moderate/report sites that spam in this manner, so that their crawlers can take a bit more care with those domains, etc.

Re:Google search ain't so good anymore

[Walter White]

I was searching for something the other day and the first several hits went to a page that put the virus warning popups up ("You need to scan your computer Right Now!!!") I couldn't even close the page. The only way to get away from it was to close the browser. It was really annoying. I looked for but saw no way to report that the site was hosting malware. (IIRC it was a search for the cabinet appointment for the US National Labor Relations Board that was being held up by some Republican senator.)

Re:Google search ain't so good anymore

[PARENA]

Nope, haven't noticed. The Google results work perfectly fine for me and I use it a lot for different kinds of searches (private and work related).

Other news

[Shotgun]

In other news, the homepage will be switched to FourSquare.

lets see:

[Anonymous Coward]

Google
Bing
Yahoo (aka, Bing) ....
um Baido?

Re: Saw it coming

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh. To the uninformed, it seems only natural to assume Google has been around for longer than it has. It's the giant that has changed the way we think about search. ~12 Years hardly seems long enough to become the kind of giant that takes on other giants that have been around for so much longer (eg. Microsoft going on 35).

On the other hand Google has been around for ~12 of the ~16 years that search existed (if we start with W3Catalog in late 1993). So perhaps its understandable that they are a search giant. I guess what gets us is that a search giant can bump elbows with other giants.

automatic scrolling?

[zogger]

Do you mean the hands-free automatic scrolling? Works fine here, no freezes, karmic running a ppa build FF, 3.6.3. https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-mozilla-daily/+archive/ppa

Re:automatic scrolling?

[xTantrum]

Do you mean the hands-free automatic scrolling? Works fine here, no freezes, karmic running a ppa build FF, 3.6.3. https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-mozilla-daily/+archive/ppa

I wasn't really sure and still not sure if you were joking with this. cause that's literally what FF does, I'll scroll down a bit and then it just starts doing it on its own till it gets to the bottom of the page and then freezes and greys out...annoying. I'm not gonna try any beta versions as yet but we'll see what happnes when lucid is stable.

Re:automatic scrolling?

[zogger]

FF has automatic scrolling when you pick a spot on some web page and hit your left and right mouse buttons simultaneously. An up and down arrow icon thing appears, and you can adjust the automatic scroll speed by how close you leave the cursor to the new icon controller. Works great, it's very controllable, give it a shot. I use it a lot at dinner time, can sit here with my plate of food and eat in peace while I read an entire thread at my comfortable reading speed, without having to touch the mouse. The thing you are describing I have never seen happen, so can't comment on it. Ya, sounds bad, you must have something broken. I'd suggest trash it and reinstall.

As to the "unstable" beta build, etc..meh, works fine. I am not one to run unstable stuff, I find ubuntu's lack of updating FF in a timely manner to be annoying (and your stable version is obviously busted for you as it is), so I go just one step beyond to the community version they also sponsor. It's closer to the official moz builds and has the security fixes, etc *way* sooner than the official ubuntu version. It comes from their site, it is just a scosh newer than what they officially release, but they don't recommend against it, either, you have that option right there to add the repository, etc. I went to this ppa build after that last slashdot story about some big FF security hole, then I noticed that ubuntu didn't offer the upgrade automatically, so I did it with the ppa build instead. If you are running the official version, it is insecure from some new big hole (and I forget what it was, something nasty though)

Re:automatic scrolling?

[xTantrum]

Thanks, I'll check out the ppa build I guess. much appreciated.

Re: Saw it coming

[Anonymous Coward]

Nevermind that Google didn't exist in '95... Others have pointed that out.

But I see you are not inhibited by the actual charts, either. I mean, it's pretty easy with 20/20 hindsight. For example, the time to sell MSFT would have been December of '99. Waiting until 2002 would cost you a lot.

Re:This morning, I burped.

[somersault]

Nice to see that some people are doing their part for recycling.

Re: Saw it coming

[aztektum]

Simple fix...

Replace Google with Dell circa 1995 when their stock was bouncing between 50 cents/1 dollar and sell around 2000 when it was ~60 dollars

Harder fix...

Building the fuckin' time machine so you can actually do any of it

I like bing

[Gyorg_Lavode]

I know it isn't popular, but I honestly like Bing. It's actually frustrating to see things go back and forth between yahoo and google without consideration of Bing. I very much wish I could get Bing as the default safari engine on my ipod. Sometimes I wonder why the requirement for search selection isn't pushed on people the way browswer selection is in Windows.
(Disclaimer: Not a windows fanboy. Currently running ubuntu, debian, osx, windows, cisco ios, opensolaris and bsd through freenas at home.)

Re: Saw it coming

[silverglade00]

I think you just found part 2 of

1. Collect underpants

2. ?

3. Profit

Re:Would have been Firefox with clean installs onl

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, if you upgraded from 9.10 to 10.04 and were using Google back in 9.10, Google stayed as your default search engine.

That was a little murky. If you were using Google with 10.04, likely the setting in your profile said "default" thus upon upgrade you would silently be using Yahoo instead.

2 kinds

[Bratmon]

Ubuntu has 2 kinds of users: 1. Those who hate Bing because Microsoft 2. Those who don't care This change managed to not make anyone angry!

In 10.04 Beta 1

[Pec]

In Beta 1, the default search is Amazon. In a fresh install.

Goes without saying, but...

[Greyor]

Yahoo is a terrible search engine. I don't remember using it for anything of substance since about 1996. I'm no Google fanboy, but it really is the best search engine out there; I'm not a fan of Bing on principle.

!BING! Re:Give us a choice! Let us pick!

[Anonymous Coward]

But they don't include BING in the drop down. RAGE!! THROW CHAIR!!! It's not FAIR!/balmer.

Re:Would have been Firefox with clean installs onl

[Anonymous Coward]

The default homepage is provided in the Ubuntu Firefox Modifications addon which essentially just redirects you to start.ubuntu.com/[ubuntuversion]/ (e.g. start.ubuntu.com/9.10/ if you are running karmic and start.ubuntu.com/10.04/ if you are running lucid), so if you use the default home page and upgrade, the Ubuntu Firefox addon will also be updated to the new version which will point you to the page for lucid, so that would be affected even from an upgrade, but it probably wouldn't change anything if you were not using the default home page. However I don't know how the search box next to the location bar would be affected.

And if anyone wants to check it out start.ubuntu.com/10.04 is still using Yahoo search as of the time I'm writing this comment.