Slashdot Mirror


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."

50 of 224 comments (clear)

  1. Good for them by iammani · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I dont think any one would want Yahoo as default search

    1. Re:Good for them by HarrySquatter · · Score: 3, Interesting

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

    2. Re:Good for them by Krneki · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
    3. Re:Good for them by sopssa · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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

    4. Re:Good for them by BrokenHalo · · Score: 4, Informative

      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 . . . "

    5. Re:Good for them by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 2, Funny

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

    6. Re:Good for them by AvitarX · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    7. Re:Good for them by __aasqbs9791 · · Score: 3, Funny

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

      He pays for internet by the character you insensitive clod!

    8. Re:Good for them by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 2, Funny

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

      He pays for internet by the character you insensitive clod!

      Another happy Verizon customer?

    9. Re:Good for them by shaitand · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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?

    10. Re:Good for them by mjkjedi · · Score: 2, Informative

      Google.cn launched in Jan 2006.

    11. Re:Good for them by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

    12. Re:Good for them by pbhj · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

  2. Yahoo? What's that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    I think I'll have to Google that one.

    1. Re:Yahoo? What's that? by Shotgun · · Score: 3, Funny

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

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  3. Unfortunately by dsavi · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Unfortunately by I+confirm+I'm+not+a · · Score: 4, Informative

      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.

      --
      This is where the serious fun begins.
    2. Re:Unfortunately by Sounder40 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      A clever person solves a problem, A wise person avoids it. -Einstein
    3. Re:Unfortunately by segedunum · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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?

    4. Re:Unfortunately by dan828 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    5. Re:Unfortunately by Bert64 · · Score: 2, Informative

      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..

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    6. Re:Unfortunately by Bert64 · · Score: 2

      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.

      --
      http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    7. Re:Unfortunately by Requiem18th · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

      --
      But... the future refused to change.
    8. Re:Unfortunately by mftb · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

  4. It probably doesn't matter by blahbooboo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

    1. Re:It probably doesn't matter by Compaqt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    2. Re:It probably doesn't matter by Shikaku · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    3. Re:It probably doesn't matter by jimcooncat · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

  5. A good sign? by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  6. But why? by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 3, Funny

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

    1. Re:But why? by game+kid · · Score: 5, Funny

      Or maybe they just felt lucky.

      --
      You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
  7. What's the big deal? by mayberry42 · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

  8. For crying out loud... by Angst+Badger · · Score: 2, Funny

    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.

    --
    Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
    1. Re:For crying out loud... by pushing-robot · · Score: 2, Funny

      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?

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
  9. The only solution by daranz · · Score: 4, Funny

    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)

    --
    This is a sig. It is appended to the end of comments I post.
    1. Re:The only solution by SharpFang · · Score: 3, Funny

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

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    2. Re:The only solution by macbuzz01 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I've got em:

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

  10. Re: Saw it coming by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  11. Only one? by Thyamine · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    I will shred my adversaries. Pull their eyes out just enough to turn them towards their mewing, mutilated faces. Illyria
    1. Re:Only one? by SharpFang · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  12. Re:Give us a choice! Let us pick! by atisss · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  13. Re: Saw it coming by guyminuslife · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    --
    I don't believe in time. It's a grand conspiracy designed to sell watches.
  14. Re: Saw it coming by barzok · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  15. Would have been Firefox with clean installs only by TejWC · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  16. Smart move by IGnatius+T+Foobar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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

    --
    Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!
  17. Re:Give us a choice! Let us pick! by BrokenHalo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  18. Firefox can keep its bodily functions to itself by GoodNicksAreTaken · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...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?

  19. Google search ain't so good anymore by phorm · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

  20. Re:Give us a choice! Let us pick! by natehoy · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

    --
    "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
  21. Re:Give us a choice! Let us pick! by Virtual_Raider · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

    --
    +Raider of the lost BBS