Shuttleworth: Chrome Nearly Replaced FF In Ubuntu

jbrodkin writes "Canonical founder Mark Shuttleworth is a big fan of Google Chrome, and says the browser could replace the standard Firefox in future versions of Ubuntu Linux. 'We looked at it closely in the last cycle and the decision was to stick with Firefox,' he says. But the work that Google is doing with Chrome OS — essentially the Chrome browser on top of Linux — is potentially leading to a future in which 'Chrome on Ubuntu and Chrome on Linux is a better experience than Chrome on any other platform [i.e. Windows and Mac].' In a wide-ranging interview, Shuttleworth also discussed why he spent $20 million to become a space tourist but doesn't own a smartphone, controversies over Linux and Unity, the future of Ubuntu tablets, and says the move toward putting personal data in the cloud is 'a little scary.'"

Comments

NoScript?

[Ironchew]

Does Chrome have a flexible JavaScript blocker like NoScript yet?

Re:NoScript?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does Chrome have a flexible JavaScript blocker like NoScript yet?

Yes.

Re:NoScript?

[Anonymous Coward]

Notscript does work on it... I don't like it as much as Firefox + Noscript, but it does function.

How about the ability to run helper applications? Or a master password for credentials built in? Probably not an issue on Ubuntu but it sucks if you don't use GNOME or KDE. I just want to continue to use my regular X11 window manager without all that crap.

I'm annoyed with Chromium.

Re:NoScript?

[Anonymous Coward]

Almost, but not really.

Re:NoScript?

[Anonymous Coward]

That was one of two things keeping me from using Chrome. How about Vimperator/Pentadactyl?

Re:NoScript?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Almost, but not really.

Right. I tried NotScript for a day and couldn't stand it, nowhere near as functional as it is on firefox. I run almost exclusively in deny-all mode with only temporary enabling on specific websites for specific cases, so its not like I use all the fancy stuff in noscript either.

I've also tried Ghostery for Chrome (from the same guys who do Ghostery for FireFox) and, due to the sucky webkit api, it is totally random what it blocks. At least it tells you what it blocked and what it let through, but hit reload on a page and you'll get a different set of what's been blocked and what's not.

Chrome is just not functional enough for anyone who gives a damn about personal security online.

Re:NoScript?

[Anonymous Coward]

Not really.
That extension appears to be dead (hasn't been updated since Sept 2010).
It also doesn't prevent "onclick" javascript. And it's missing many important NoScript features.

I'm currently using NotScripts with Chromium, but it's still not as good as NoScript - and probably never will be, unless the developer brings the project back to life or releases the source.

Re:NoScript?

[toastar]

Meh.... Cry me a river....

Chrome is good enough for checking the Mail/News/Comics, But you should use 2 browsers anyway. One where you want to be tracked, and one where you don't. I don't expect Chrome to work with Tor, but sometimes I need to be able to have one big account so i can be tied in to automatically download the app i clicked on to my phone. And I'm sure as hell not going to use IE.

Re:NoScript?

[PwnzerDragoon]

There's also this version, the only difference being that it has a password hard-coded into it so you don't need to futz around with configuration files to get it working. It does open up a security hole in that web sites could theoretically allow web sites to read your NotScripts settings, but I don't really care that a website might find out I have google-analytics.com blocked.

Re:NoScript?

[Anonymous Coward]

Meh.... Cry me a river....

Chrome is good enough for checking the Mail/News/Comics, But you should use 2 browsers anyway. One where you want to be tracked, and one where you don't. I don't expect Chrome to work with Tor, but sometimes I need to be able to have one big account so i can be tied in to automatically download the app i clicked on to my phone. And I'm sure as hell not going to use IE.

Chrome has a plugin called Proxy Switchy that can be configured to work with tor. It puts a little button next to the address bar to turn it on or off.

Re:NoScript?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does NotScripts have ABE? ClearClick? XSS protection?

Nope.

NotScripts shouldn't be named the way it is. You can't even say it's an extremely limited version of NoScript. You can just call in a javascript blocker.

Re:NoScript?

[PopeRatzo]

You can just call in a javascript blocker.

Right. That's what the original poster wanted to know: If Chrome has a javascript blocker.

Apparently, there is still some work to be done. I'm betting we'll see a more appropriate script blocker soon enough. Certainly by the time it becomes the browser in Ubuntu.

Re:NoScript?

[Anonymous Coward]

And I'm sure as hell not going to use IE.

Yeah, why start up WINE just to use a web browser?

Re:NoScript?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does Chrome have a flexible JavaScript blocker like NoScript yet?

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/odjhifogjcknibkahlpidmdajjpkkcfn

Re:NoScript?

[AliasMarlowe]

But you should use 2 browsers anyway

Make that at least 2 browsers. I use Chromium (Google search/maps/etc.), Firefox (general browsing), and Opera (shopping and banking). All have privacy and security set to not-quite-paranoid levels, with history, cookies, and flash objects completely wiped per session and occasionally wiped within a session. I don't use Chrome, and I only use IE on the windows PC at work where it's almost mandatory for intranet stuff.

Re:NoScript?

[allo]

not that this were real NoScript features. NoScript should block scripts, and nothing else. I can install two extensions, if i want the rest of the features, too.

Re:NoScript?

[Threni]

No, and you have to double-right-click on links to open them. Huh? And you need to devote a whole row of screen space to get a single bookmark icon. Huh?

Re:NoScript?

[pinkushun]

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/odjhifogjcknibkahlpidmdajjpkkcfn?hl=en-US

Funnily I haven't needed one. I use AdBlock and Vimium, and don't browse dodge circus midget site any longer.

Re:NoScript?

[drinkypoo]

Chrome is good enough for checking the Mail/News/Comics,

No, it isn't, because the noscript-like tool is not reliable and it gets in your way, and I won't surf ANY site any more without protection, lest I become clickjacked, or simply load a malicious banner ad.

And I'm sure as hell not going to use IE.

False dichotomy much?

Re:NoScript?

[ThePhilips]

Apparently, there is still some work to be done.

Chrome extensions are in this state permanently, since their inception 2 years ago.

On topic: sort'a reminds me of the Linux on Desktop. Kind of works and is there already - but "there is still some work to be done." For a decade now.

Re:NoScript?

[tehcyder]

But you should use 2 browsers anyway

Make that at least 2 browsers. I use Chromium (Google search/maps/etc.), Firefox (general browsing), and Opera (shopping and banking). All have privacy and security set to not-quite-paranoid levels, with history, cookies, and flash objects completely wiped per session and occasionally wiped within a session. I don't use Chrome, and I only use IE on the windows PC at work where it's almost mandatory for intranet stuff.

Unless you're a spy, terrorist or criminal, you are quite paranoid.

Re:NoScript?

[Anonymous Coward]

NotScripts

Re:NoScript?

[calzakk]

I only use IE on the windows PC at work where it's almost mandatory for intranet stuff.

In that case it's not mandatory, so you shouldn't even be using it at work.

Re:NoScript?

[cpu6502]

>>>you should use 2 browsers anyway.

Right.

Firefox plus Opera (which stores bookmarks online, and has image compression to avoid ISP overage fees). Not chrome. I don't like how it's organized, or its lack of FF/opera-style addons and features.

Re:NoScript?

[heathen_01]

Just Because You're Paranoid Doesn't Mean They're Not Out to Get You.

Re:NoScript?

[Anonymous Coward]

nope.avi

Re:NoScript?

[ultranova]

Chrome is just not functional enough for anyone who gives a damn about personal security online.

Chrome is developed by a company who's very business model is to keep track of you. Of course it doesn't make it easy to block such surveillance.

Re:NoScript?

[DaVince21]

For over a year, I believe. And it exists in Chrome internally.

Re:NoScript?

[DaVince21]

Do people not know about the rather good built-in JS blocking mechanism? Enable it, and you can be asked what scripts should be run on a page through an icon in the address bar.

Re:NoScript?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I've been using it for some time:

NotScripts

https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/odjhifogjcknibkahlpidmdajjpkkcfn

Re:NoScript?

[Anonymous Coward]

If he was a spy/terrorist/criminal that might not be far enough.

Re:NoScript?

[Anonymous Coward]

And many other extension with firefox have and achived the maturity in many years from security and usability aspects.

Firefox?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have to admit, I've forgotten about Firefox since using Chrome on Ubuntu...

Reasons being the one process per tab feature as well as speed and stability.

Re:Firefox?

[queBurro]

and the password syncing, that was what did it for me, all my passwords all nicely syncd in VMs/work/partitions without any messing about with xmarks

Chrome OSS?

[steevven1]

Wouldn't they have to switch to Chromium? AFAIK, Chrome is not open-source software.

Re:Chrome OSS?

[AliasMarlowe]

Wouldn't they have to switch to Chromium?

This is the case with Lubuntu (version of Ubuntu using LXDE instead of Gnome/KDE/others). It uses Chromium as its default browser, although others can be installed.

Lubuntu is not yet an "official" version of Ubuntu, but is expected to become one with the release of 11.10 Oneiric Ocelot.

right then

[mirix]

I've never understood the carelevel for what comes default so much. I forget what the default browser is in debian, but it isn't firefox/iceweasel, at least it wasn't. not konq either.. uh.. e-something. And yet i have no problems getting firefox running more or less instantly upon install.

apt-get install browser-you-like; done

Nor do i see a purpose for *buntu, surely plain ubuntu has other WMs available through apt, no?

ps - why chrome over chromium?

Re:right then

[__Paul__]

Epiphany. The world's most useless browser. Basically, it was Galeon with all its features removed, and then replaced with a silly tag-based bookmarking system that is so unintuitive to use that no-one would ever bother with it.

Re:right then

[wintersdark]

Sorry, I thought chromium == linux build of chrome? If not, excuse my ignorance!

Anyways, I concur wholeheartedly with the above post, to extremes even. There are countless Linux distros that differ from their parents solely by the default included software, all of which is easily grabbed via the package manager. It's certainly handy to have it preassembled, if the given package list is what you want, but otherwise it seems like a lot of unnecessary clutter.

Why GIMP being included or not in the default Ubuntu install was news at all, for example. Who cares? If it fits, great, if not just grab it after install if you need it.

Software installed by default is a major deal with an OS such as windows, that comes preinstalled on regular systems. Ubuntu doesn't. Sure, there's some niche manufacturers that sell pre-installed Ubuntu systems (and the odd rarely purchased Dell model, now and then), but the *vast* majority of commercial desktop/laptop systems are windows based - obviously excluding Apple.

These users - buying pre-built systems from bigbox retailers - they often have no idea of their options in browsers and other software, so the default install has significant value.

Users installing Ubuntu on end-user systems however are by nature at least sufficiently literate with the system to be aware of their options and to pick the packages they want.

So, yeah... who cares? Why is this even news?

All that said... Chrome on Linux is a much better experience than FF, or at least it was for me a few builds ago, haven't installed the 11.xx ubuntu builds or the later FF/Chrome builds.

Re:right then

[khellendros1984]

The choice of a default browser for a distro that caters toward less-experienced users (like Ubuntu) is very important. Frankly, most users probably won't change away from whatever the OS came with.

It's a similar situation for the other Window Managers. Why require a user to install and configure major interface-changing software like that, when you're marketing your OS as dead-simple to use?

Re:right then

[kj_kabaje]

oh for mod points... this is exactly why it matters and why parent post is completely missing the point.

Re:right then

[Anonymous Coward]

Epiphany on Fedora 15 is actually nice. I use it as my default browser (although I switch to Firefox to web development).

Re:right then

[mirix]

Well why not make the ubuntu installer ask whether you'd like kde or gnome or xfce instead of managing 8 *buntus...? Seems so terribly redundant.

If you're catering to folk that are too derp to apt-get install firefox, they could install 5 browsers by default and pop up a pretty window asking them which they'd like to try, in the age of terabyte HDDs.

Re:right then

[PwnzerDragoon]

Chromium is the open-source version of Chrome. I don't know what exactly is different, except Chromium doesn't have Google's tracking code in it.

Re:right then

[Anonymous Coward]

It's still important for the distro to fit on a single CD.

Re:right then

[RobbieThe1st]

So?
I thought we already had a CD and DVD release: Give out one stripped-down CD ISO with one WM etc, and release a DVD with all of them and an installer that lets you choose(with pictures).

Re:right then

[aztracker1]

Doesn't have adobe flash or pdf iirc.

Re:right then

[bhcompy]

Can be added no problem

Re:right then

[cgenman]

Actually, Ubuntu has a very easy little store interface that anyone can install browsers from.

But the point is that you're trying to bring in users who are barely aware that there are keys to the left and right of the spacebar. "Oh look, would you like KDE or Gnome or XFCE or Afterstep or Sawfish or Blackbox or CDE or..." Most of those the average person can't pronounce, let alone remember the name of or have any clue about. And quite frankly, the only difference I can tell between KDE and Gnome is that they massively screw up the simplest of tasks in slightly different ways.

I couldn't tell you if my car had electronic or mechanical fuel injection. I bet my mechanic couldn't off the top of his head tell the difference between Firefox and Chrome. While I'm mildly curious about fuel injection, I haven't looked it up. And my mechanic hasn't been bothered to find out about the different browsers. And you know what? He shouldn't have to. It's a browser. It's a piece of software fundamentally there to get out of the damned way so that browsing can happen. Anyone who *really* needs the particular type of ad-block available on Firefox above the ad-block available on Chrome can install firefox. They didn't ask me when I bought my car to set my suspension stiffness, tune the relative braking force, adjust shift timings, and configure an optional NOX system.

It's just a means to an end. Ubuntu gets that. That's why they're currently #1. That's why people are buying iPads. It's not that they're dumb. It's that what matters to us doesn't matter to them. And when it does start mattering to them, they can figure out how to do it.

Re:right then

[walshy007]

It's still important for the distro to fit on a single CD.

Why?

Up the space to a single layer dvd like the fedora dvd releases, and you can fit pretty much all the software you will ever need on it. All the common window managers, compilers, ides, games, etc.

I never understood why people think that the software for their entire system has to come in at under 600mb, in 2011.

This fixes those people that are like 'I'm not going to use k*whatever because it needs me to download QT, because it is already on the system. (not to mention they fail to realize they only have to download it once then they can access all of the qt apps without downloading it again).

Should minimalist cut down versions of distros still exist? of course, and they will serve their niches. But there is no reason that this should be the default for everyone.

Re:right then

[allo]

can be added as .so, but the .so is nonfree.

Re:right then

[TheRaven64]

What do you mean by the distro? When I install *BSD, I usually use the boot-only ISO, which is typically about 5MB. The base system is usually about 300MB, maybe less depending on the particular configuration (OpenBSD on CF in my firewall is a lot smaller), and then there are packages. The available packages are several GBs (not sure how many), but I don't want them on the install media, because there are probably new versions available fixing security holes since the ISO was made (last Chromium vulnerability: two published on June 7), so I want to grab packages over the network anyway. If anything, I'd rather have a version-independent boot CD that would always grab and install the latest version. It just needs to ship with enough drivers to be able to control the network, display and input devices.

Re:right then

[Arancaytar]

You can embed evince (and presumably okular or whatever), which loads slightly more slowly and doesn't capture the Ctrl+F and Ctrl+P hotkeys (those will be picked up by the browser and not work), but has a few more features than the non-free PDF viewer by Google Chrome.

I've also had trouble getting the Chrome viewer to work consistently in Chromium. It repeatedly crashed or failed to load, requiring a browser restart. This could be related to version discrepancies, though, as I used the .so from Chrome 13 (dev) with Chromium 11 (stable).

Re:right then

[DaVince21]

Sorry, I thought chromium == linux build of chrome? If not, excuse my ignorance!

Nope. Chromium == open source version of Chrome; Chrome is a binary version of Chromium with proprietary bits attached (like internally provided Flash and PDF codecs). Both Chromium and Chrome are available on all three platforms.

Re:right then

[DaVince21]

I say codecs, I mean plugins. My bad.

Re:right then

[DragonWriter]

Well why not make the ubuntu installer ask whether you'd like kde or gnome or xfce instead of managing 8 *buntus...? Seems so terribly redundant.

Possibly because putting all the desktop environments on one CD would take up too much space. The WUBI installer (that installs Ubuntu with its boot partition in a file on an NTFS partition that can be installed and removed from Windows with Add/Remove programs [note, its still a dual boot, not a "runs under Windows" system like, e.g., Portable Ubuntu]), which grabs packages from the internet to install, does ask what desktop environment you want, while the normal CD-based installers don't.

I'd miss the Firefox addons

[cpu6502]

Puppy Linux has the non-google Chromium as its standard browser, and it works well for that compact distribution, but I do miss all the Firefox addons. Like Youtube downloaders, Flash video downloaders, NoScript, CW's video plugin to watch free shows, and so on.

I'd sooner that Ubuntu stick with Firefox.

Re:I'd miss the Firefox addons

[drb226]

It's not like they'd throw Firefox out of the Software Center; it just wouldn't be bundled with the OS.

Re:I'd miss the Firefox addons

[br4nd0nh3at]

I use Chromium's built-in javascript blocker.
It also has a
flash video downloader
and flashgot extensions (plugins).
Works fine for me.

Re:I'd miss the Firefox addons

[Jonner]

Puppy Linux has the non-google Chromium as its standard browser, and it works well for that compact distribution, but I do miss all the Firefox addons. Like Youtube downloaders, Flash video downloaders, NoScript, CW's video plugin to watch free shows, and so on.

I'd sooner that Ubuntu stick with Firefox.

What's installed by default mostly affects new users who don't have a strong preference for particular applications. I'll continue to use Firefox whether or not it's installed by default on Ubuntu, since it will still be in the repositories. That's what I've already been doing with Thunderbird (Ubuntu's default mail program Evolution sucks) and Pidgin (Empathy isn't flexible enough).

Re:I'd miss the Firefox addons

[DaVince21]

YouTube downloader is an uderscript: http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/62634
Script blocking: supported internally under chrome://settings/content
Downloading Flash files: press Ctrl+shift+i (or F12 on a beta), click on Resources, right-click on the SWF file you want to save. Maybe I should make a userscript that should make this easier, though.

I have no idea what CW is so I guess you could miss that extension, but most of the other things should be possible in Chrome, as you can see. So it's mostly up to taste at that point.

Re:I'd miss the Firefox addons

[kamome]

e.g. Easy Youtube Video Downloader

Chromium?

[oldhack]

If he likes Chrome so much, why not invest in developing FOSS browser based on Chromium?

Re:Chromium?

[markkezner]

Why bother forking Chromium when they can just contribute back to the original project? There's usually no point to forking unless you have trouble getting the maintainer to merge in your changes.

Re:Chromium?

[oldhack]

Ugg... did I mention forking?

Re:Chromium?

[Anonymous Coward]

Implied it, yes.

invest in developing FOSS browser based on Chromium

A browser based on Chromium would tend to mean "not actually Chromium but a browser based on it".

Re:Chromium?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. "Based on Chromium" means not Chromium itself, which implies forking it.

Re:Chromium?

[whiteboy86]

Does Google pay any money for default inclusion of Chromium? I doubt it.

Re:Chromium?

[drinkypoo]

What does forking have to do with anything? They didn't fork Firefox, they just made a plugin.

Re:Chromium?

[Risen888]

when they can just contribute back to the original project?

This is Canonical. They don't do that sort of thing.

Re:Chromium?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is already a FOSS version if chromium out there, it's called "iron"

Fox In the Henhouse

[Scarletdown]

Is it wise to run a browser (and when Chrome OS comes out, a full fledged operating system) pushed by the biggest advertising, tracking, and marketing company on the web? Wouldn't it be better to use something that does not have a vested interest in tracking everything you do online? Or is the source for this browser fully open so any nasty evil bits would be spotted by vigilant hackers and purged immediately?

Re:Fox In the Henhouse

[kvvbassboy]

They would probably use Chromium. AFAIK, Ubuntu doesn't ship with non-free software as default. But meh, no big deal, it's just an apt-get install away.

Re:Fox In the Henhouse

[jfp51]

Is it wise to run a browser (and when Chrome OS comes out, a full fledged operating system) pushed by the biggest advertising, tracking, and marketing company on the web? Wouldn't it be better to use something that does not have a vested interest in tracking everything you do online? Or is the source for this browser fully open so any nasty evil bits would be spotted by vigilant hackers and purged immediately?

Then just use Chromium, you can check the source code all you want to make sure the evil Googles is not getting any of your data...

Re:Fox In the Henhouse

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it wise to run a browser (and when Chrome OS comes out, a full fledged operating system) pushed by the biggest advertising, tracking, and marketing company on the web?

Nice job vaguely insinuating that Google is bad. What specifically is Chromium doing that you dislike? They release full source, under Apache 2 for their code, GPL for Apple's webkit code. Development is done in the open (you can see every commit, code review, etc.).

Look at Mozilla's financials: 95% of their revenue is from Google. If it were not for Google funding them over the past 15 years, Firefox would be long dead, and the internet would be IE only. Linux would not have a usable web browser.

Wouldn't it be better to use something that does not have a vested interest in tracking everything you do online?

Let me know when one exists. As far as I know, the only other open option is made by Apple, and it's just a rendering library, so you will need to implement your own UI.

Or is the source for this browser fully open so any nasty evil bits would be spotted by vigilant hackers and purged immediately?

Yes, it is fully open: http://src.chromium.org/viewvc

Re:Fox In the Henhouse

[Anonymous Coward]

Then just use Chromium, you can check the source code all you want to make sure the evil Googles is not getting any of your data..

That is meaningless. Defaults matter. A lot.

Re:Fox In the Henhouse

[Anonymous Coward]

In your rush to punish the unbeliever you missed the fact that they were speaking of Chrome not Chromium, just like the article.

Re:Fox In the Henhouse

[Anonymous Coward]

If it were not for Google funding them over the past 15 years, Firefox would be long dead, and the internet would be IE only. Linux would not have a usable web browser.

There'd still be KHTML and its fork WebKit.

Re:Fox In the Henhouse

[Anonymous Coward]

Chrome OS wouldn't be a problem for me at all. We don't have any 3g or 4g networks available in the area, I'd have to drive 18 miles for the local free wifi and I don't use google apps. Why would Chrome OS be a problem?

Re:Fox In the Henhouse

[Lazy Jones]

Let me know when one exists. As far as I know, the only other open option is made by Apple

Hello Anonymous Cowardly Google Fanboy, another option is Opera, it has just replaced the crappy bloatware with "let the user wait till I'm done with something unimportant" mechanics that is Thunderbird for me.
Yes, Opera is a corporation too, but it's not the evil "if you don't want us to know better don't do it" nightmare that Google has become.

Re:Fox In the Henhouse

[cbhacking]

Exactly. Whether or not WebKit (and Safari/Chrome) existed, Konqueror wasn't going to just vanish without Mozilla. In fact, it may well have gotten more development support (it's already a good browser, but any project that big could use more contributors). Don't like KDE dependencies? Extract the rendering engine (KHTML, the base of WebKit) and put it in your own browser (which is pretty much what Apple did, plus maintaining their own version).

Then there's Opera. Say what you will about proprietary software, Opera is a pretty damn good browser and runs on Linux.

Re:Fox In the Henhouse

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me know when one exists. As far as I know, the only other open option is made by Apple

Hello Anonymous Cowardly Google Fanboy,

Ad Homium #1...

Yes, Opera is a corporation too, but it's not the evil "if you don't want us to know better don't do it" nightmare that Google has become.

Ad Homium #2...

So if I understand your argument, you don't trust Chromium, whose source you can read. You do trust Opera, whose source you can not read. Do you think google is somehow using mind control to keep you and everyone else from understanding the source?

Re:Fox In the Henhouse

[Anonymous Coward]

Is the source for Opera open yet? Didn't think so.

Re:Fox In the Henhouse

[Anonymous Coward]

Google isn't just bad. Google is horrendous, wicked, unethical, untrustworthy creepy.

Re:Fox In the Henhouse

[Anonymous Coward]

Let me know when one exists. As far as I know, the only other open option is made by Apple

Hello Anonymous Cowardly Google Fanboy, another option is Opera, it has just replaced the crappy bloatware with "let the user wait till I'm done with something unimportant" mechanics that is Thunderbird for me.

Yes, Opera is a corporation too, but it's not the evil "if you don't want us to know better don't do it" nightmare that Google has become.

Did you even read what you quoted? "the only other open option" How is Opera "open"?

Re:Fox In the Henhouse

[aztracker1]

"Open" was specifically mentioned..opera isn't open/libre.

Re:Fox In the Henhouse

[Anonymous Coward]

Look at Mozilla's financials: 95% of their revenue is from Google. If it were not for Google funding them over the past 15 years, Firefox would be long dead, and the internet would be IE only. Linux would not have a usable web browser.

Come on. If it were not for Google funding them over the past 15 years, somebody else would.

Google didn't give the money out of charity; they bought the rights to the default Firefox start page and search engine. For the money they got hundreds of millions of eyeballs. If Google didn't buy, Mozilla would sell the rights to the second-highest bidder. And that would still be worth a lot.

Re:Fox In the Henhouse

[cgenman]

Mozilla / Firefox was pushed by Google for a very long time. If I'm remembering my history correctly, Google was their largest funding source up until Chrome.

Re:Fox In the Henhouse

[Anonymous Coward]

95%?

No, 87% and steadily falling, despite rising revenues for Mozilla Foundation.

Re:Fox In the Henhouse

[datsa]

1. Chromium is "fully open" - Chrome is not. At least according to TFA, they're talking about Chrome. Nice job pretending they're the same thing*.
2. Both Chrome and Chromium have a single location bar that also acts as a search bar. That means when you enter any URL by default, it pings Google as you type. You can turn it off, but as many people have mentioned, defaults matter.
3. Even to the extent that the browser is fully open source, its primary function is to lead you to Google's closed-source cloud services, which is the only reason Chrome exists. It's not a "gift", and Google isn't Santa Claus.

* If you ask me what the difference is between the two, I couldn't tell you, because Chrome is not open source.

Re:Fox In the Henhouse

[datsa]

Bingo - Google is Mozilla's client. That's the difference. Mozilla still has an independent vision and leadership. And as far as I know, nothing Mozilla does is closed source.

Re:Fox In the Henhouse

[Lazy Jones]

Ad Homium #1...

Don't try to use Latin if you fail so pathetically at it.

...that Google has become

Ad Homium #2...

Oh, hello Google!

Do you think google is somehow using mind control to keep you and everyone else from understanding the source?

Chromium "calling home" is a well-known fact, I don't even have to look at the source code to understand that the tracking is done server-side, not in the client.

Re:Fox In the Henhouse

[Kjella]

Come on. If it were not for Google funding them over the past 15 years, somebody else would.

Really? Consider that both the #2 and #3 search engine is both powered by Microsoft, who'd clearly not want to break the IE dominance and most of open source would rebel at the idea. #4 is a tie between Ask Jeeves and Baidu with about 0.4% of the market, they wouldn't have the financial muscle.

Google has paid Mozilla very well to break IEs dominance, I think they've seen it just as much an investment as an expense. And in that, mission accomplished. But I find it unlikely that Google is that interested in funding Mozilla now that IEs dominance is well and truly broken and Chrome will pass 20% market share on statcounter this month.

Re:Fox In the Henhouse

[LWATCDR]

Did you not know that most of Firefox's revenue comes from Google?
And no vigilant hackers are not what we need. vigilant programmers are. If you bothered to look before you posted you find that Chromium is FOSS under the Apache 2 license. In other words this poast was a waste of electrons and sound like Microsoft level FUD.

Re:Fox In the Henhouse

[MonsterTrimble]

Say what you will about proprietary software, Opera is a pretty damn good browser and runs on Linux.

100% Agreed. Everyone keeps talking about Firefox's extensions and Chrome's speed. Opera has been right there with Chrome the whole way plus has the accelerator for lower bandwidth connections, the Unite package (which say what you will is a fantastic piece of kit) and by far the best RSS feeder I've seen. And on top of that, Opera's linux offering is always released at the same time as Windows & OSX.

Re:Fox In the Henhouse

[Cajun Hell]

Is it wise to run a browser (and when Chrome OS comes out, a full fledged operating system) pushed by the biggest advertising, tracking, and marketing company on the web?

It's wise to be cautious and go into the decision with no faith.

The awesome thing about Free Software, is that it doesn't require faith. Chromium is there for you to see. If you like what you see, then there's nothing unwise about running it.

Re:Fox In the Henhouse

[Risen888]

What specifically is Chromium doing that you dislike?

Nobody's talking about Chromium.

Look at Mozilla's financials: 95% of their revenue is from Google. If it were not for Google funding them over the past 15 years, Firefox would be long dead, and the internet would be IE only. Linux would not have a usable web browser.

If Firefox were forced to rely less on corporate money and more on the community (you know, like a real open project), Linux would have a substantially better web browser than it presently does.

Re:Fox In the Henhouse

[Anonymous Coward]

>> Linux would not have a usable web browser.

Because Opera, KHTML, and the 40 other non-FF webbrowsers based on it would cease to exist?

Re:Fox In the Henhouse

[Scarletdown]

Did you not know that most of Firefox's revenue comes from Google?
And no vigilant hackers are not what we need. vigilant programmers are. If you bothered to look before you posted you find that Chromium is FOSS under the Apache 2 license. In other words this poast was a waste of electrons and sound like Microsoft level FUD.

My post was about Chrome (which is what I was sure this article was about). I had honestly never heard of Chromium until now. I will check it out sometime when the whim strikes or if Firefox/Iceweasel ever stop being useful to me. And my line about vigilant hackers was merely for dramatically silly effect. Nothing more.

And despite what other posters in this thread mistakenly assumed, I was not insinuating that Google is evil and should be avoided at all costs (I reserve that honor to Sony. Heh). No, I was simply advising caution concerning putting all your eggs in one basket and letting one corporation be the be all and end all of your online activities. I use some of Google's services myself (GMail, Google Checkout, YouTube, and search for example). But I am not going to rely on them for every last activity I may need to engage in online or offline.

I know this may be something that can cause spontaneous cerebral detonation when revealed, but here it goes anyway. I do not engage in brand loyalty or fanboyism. I treat Google the way I treat any other corporation. In other words, I treat them as a corporation, not as some personal friend and confidant who will be there for you through thick and thin. If a corporation has a product or service that I find useful (and if they have not earned a place on my no buy list), I will use them (and will recommend them if someone else is looking for the same). Once they are no longer useful, or if they engage in practices that exceed my threshold of assholeishness, they get dropped and I look for an alternative.

Re:Fox In the Henhouse

[LWATCDR]

"I had honestly never heard of Chromium until now."
So you posted from the point of ignorance.
" And my line about vigilant hackers was merely for dramatically silly effect. "
So you feel that emotional manipulation is useful tactic.
So your post combines ignorance with the level of arrogance that cause you to feel that manipulation is needed to inform those that are not as wise you.
When dealing with technical issues it is better to use facts and not manipulation.

Re:Fox In the Henhouse

[Anonymous Coward]

15 years? Google didn't even exist 15 years ago.

Re:Fox In the Henhouse

[Anonymous Coward]

What was vague about the insinuation? Guess it depends on your definition of bad. Openess/transparency is key. It makes all things known and therefore controllable. When you can see the danger, you can probably avoid it.

If it were not for Google funding Mozilla over the past 15 years, there would be no Chrome, either. Or it would be an IE derivative/overlay. Or it would be something altogether new.

Konqueror and rekong are two open browsers that you might not have known about. Technically, Konqueror is not just a browser, but, includes a browser. It will probably lose the browser after rekong matures. That will be soon, it seems..

Re:Fox In the Henhouse

[squiggleslash]

No, those would be long dead too.

Firefox is important not so much because it's another choice, as the fact it makes other choices possible. If Firefox hadn''t been successful on Windows, the web would, truly, have ended up being IE only, with all that entails. Firefox's success under Windows meant that other browsers, including Konqueror, stood a fighting chance of being able to render the web.

And, no, Apple coopting KHTML into WebKit, wouldn't have done the same thing because Apple wouldn't have done it to begin with. Why would they, if KHTML wasn't able to render the vast majority of web sites people used? Apple would have had to stick with Microsoft for the Mac OS X Internet browser.

Don't underestimate what Firefox did. Firefox sucked people away from IE in droves, forcing web designers to eschew ActiveX and the bugs and features of IE, and have them adopt Internet standards. Opera? Would have gone the same way as Netscape, and KHTML, as an obscure technology used by the less popular of the two desktops for an obscure technie's operating system, would never have taken the web where Mozilla did.

Re:Fox In the Henhouse

[Anonymous Coward]

"As far as I know, the only other open option [that doesn't track you online] is made by Apple...."

Never heard of Opera? Even Rekonq (though it has a long way to go) was a huge improvement over the old Konq.
I'd take FF before Opera of Chrom(ium) based solely on the merits though.

"What specifically is Chromium doing that you dislike?"
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13739_3-10038963-46.html?tag=mncol;title
CONTRAST with EU laws which require full expungement of records after 9 mo.

Chrome's cookie-retention with partial-IP-deletion is 100% trackable as that CNET article shows ...for 2 years. Trackable by anyone (namely google) with the computing-power of an 8088 CPU as google makes it easy to use the cookie to recover the small part of your IP that they expunge :-) ...OTOH, Ubuntu Firefox ships with the same auto-suggest feature on, in its google search-bar, so it's not a big diff. Personally I turn it off due to the annoying flashes it puts on my screen, let alone b/c of what google might tell my government or any corrupt official who convinces google they have authority to access my searches from 2 years. ...and google has occasionally reacted well to complaints about privacy...but only when the potential damage to google (not we the users) outweighs the benefit because google's interests was threatened by such loud complaints.

"They release full source..."
Doesn't google also do that with the aGPS in tablets/smartphones that they promised isn't tracking any USER-IDENTIFIABLE data when indeed it is? ;-) [just like cnet exposed that their press-release makes it seem, and ONLY seem, that they aren't retaining user-identifiable info after 9 or 18 months...] Try again, I know you must be less naive than that.
. . . So does google really need to know every WiFi location that you went near in the last few months for YOUR benefit? No...it's profit, at the expense of my privacy (and others', who STILL, even today, often don't even realize how google, and especially Apple, are treating that data collected from their mobile), and after I've paid $500-$750, they've made a fair profit (more than a fair profit, considering most competing mobile-devices (netbooks, laptops, non-GPS phones) vs the mark-up on today's hype: tablets), then it's sprung on many "early adopters" that they gave up more than they bargained for by turning on "location based 'services' " -- you need to give up some of the phone's features/"services" that google hypes and touts that you'll get, in order to stop google from "serving" themselves by tracking you: location-based "services" serve google as much as they serve you. If google wants my location info, let the sneaky fucks come clean & tell us -- as prominently as they tout that "this phone includes location-based 'services' " and say it prominently BEFORE we buy the phone-- exactly what they want to know, for how long, is it anonymized, is it kept unencrypted like Apple unscrupulously did (so that any thief/stalker/etc can get my data), etc: and once they state those things as openly as they state the other features that come with the phone, THEN let them BUY the info from me if it's worth something to them. :-)

Brands

[Wowsers]

Why contemplate Google Chrome? Dump the Google branding and install Chromium instead. Still, Firefox has vastly more plug-ins which make browsing more bearable, which is why it has a bigger following. If only they could stop some of the plug-ins from being so damn slow.

Re:Brands

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course; why Chrome over Chromium but no-one, neither Mozilla nor Canonical should be able to black-list plug-ins based on their efficiency. Mozilla are kindly informing us though: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/performance/

Firebug; even if my browser was 1000% slower!

Re:Brands

[lostmongoose]

The percentages are missing context. X% slower than what baseline? What hardware was it tested on? What version of the extension? When they post answers to those questions, that post *might* mean something.

Re:Brands

[Osgeld]

I have a lot of stability issues with chromium, and we all know ubuntu is not about to put any effort into improving anything if they can get something better next door

Re:Brands

[Anonymous Coward]

The same low-level access that makes Firefox add-ons so flexible also means there's not a whole lot that Mozilla can do to force them to work faster. Figure out which add-ons are slow, and take it up with the authors.

Re:Brands

[lucian1900]

Ubuntu already provides Chromium, not Chrome.

JOYGASM

[Anonymous Coward]

no yuo!

Cause Google does no evil...

[Anonymous Coward]

Enough said.

Summary

[PCM2]

On whether Chrome will replace Firefox in Ubuntu: Not in the next year, at least.
On companies wanting to own your personal data: It is a little scary.
On Unity vs. Gnome 3: Clearly, some people like Unity and some really don't.
On whether Canonical doesn't contribute enough to the kernel: That's not true.
On why he doesn't own a smartphone: Because he hasn't bought one. Yet.
On why there's no Ubuntu tablet: Unity doesn't really work as a tablet interface.
On getting everyone to use free software: It will be difficult and will take a long time.

Well, I certainly feel better informed!

Re:Summary

[vlueboy]

On why there's no Ubuntu tablet: Unity doesn't really work as a tablet interface.

Wow, so there it is! He single-handedly pushes something designed for tablets to our desktops, only we all hate it here. Then someone thinks logically and wants to see if its original environment is any better barring the suspected "lost-in-translation syndrome"... only that he admits it's just as broken on tablets.

What was the progress made with Unity, then, other than hurt usage share? Then he goes on to mention Chrome/ium although non-geeks use Firefox. He's probably planning to whittle his ratio of Linux to Ubuntu followers to levels similar to Windows vs. OSX levels.

Re:Summary

[Anonymous Coward]

... geeks user Firefox too.

Re:Summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed...WOW!

Tell me again...what is the fscking point of Unity then! I thought the move to unity was because everything is moving to tablets and we needed something that handles that better, even though it borks traditional desktop usage a bit. Now we have something that doesn't do tablets very well AND doesn't do desktop very well. Holy crap! I don't use ubuntu but my head still hurts...

Re:Summary

[c0lo]

Indeed...WOW!

Tell me again...what is the fscking point of Unity then!

To push you onto XCFE.
They managed to do it. My only regret: they should have done it earlier!

Re:Summary

[Rutulian]

Interesting that you thought that...it seems everybody on /. at least thought that. But has anyone at Canonical ever said that? I can't recall a statement like that. When you think about it, Unity is actually terrible as tablet UI. It borrows more ideas from OSX than iOS.

Re:Summary

[Anonymous Coward]

Unity was originally designed for netbooks, not tablets, you moron. And since it's so very focused on keyboard usage, it quite obvious that it isn't as useful on tablets which doesn't have one.

The Cloud vs. Free Software

[tbf]

The Cloud is closed. Even more closed than all IBM's, Microsoft and Apples of this world ever have been. Does Mark realise that he makes his entire Ubuntu project obsolete by trusting The Cloud? We can just stick with the pre-installed Windows or OSX, if all our stuff is in that fucking Cloud. Actually would be more secure than using Googlezillas Spyware...

Re:The Cloud vs. Free Software

[bgarcia]

The Cloud is closed.

Which is why some people at Google have created the Data Liberation Front. You should not feel safe using a cloud-based service unless you are able to download all of your data from the service whenever you like.

Re:The Cloud vs. Free Software

[DragonWriter]

The Cloud is closed.

No, its not.

Offerings of particular service providers may or may not be closed, but "the cloud", itself, is not (in fact, "the cloud" is something that you can run yourself with open source software; Ubuntu Server even includes infrastructure for it in the form of Ubuntu Enterprise Cloud.)

One more reason:

[crhylove]

Not to use Ubuntu and to stick with Linux Mint. Why is Ubuntu so prone to horrible choices like this?

Re:One more reason:

[grcumb]

Why is Ubuntu so prone to horrible choices like this?

The answer's pretty simple: They've stopped listening.

Ubuntu is slipping out of control. Canonical have stopped listening and – more importantly – working with the community. The number of defects is growing, but Canonical’s response is to make it harder for mere mortals to submit bugs. They seem to think that strong guidance is needed for their product to grow in new and interesting ways. Fair enough, but they’re confusing leadership with control. They’re simply imposing their views because they don’t value the discussion. They’re treating criticism as opposition and shutting themselves off from valid feedback.

Worse, they simply don’t have the number of skilled developers they need to achieve their goals. When I look at the bug queues on some packages, I shudder in sympathy with the poor souls who are expected to wrangle them. Canonical is clearly embarked on an impossible task, but nobody’s either got the guts or the vision to spell this out to Shuttleworth and co.

(This is excerpted from a slightly longer piece I wrote after 11.04 was released.)

Re:One more reason:

[rubycodez]

Unity might be such a reason, but for browser change he's talking about a time frame past the 12.04 LTS release, more than a year from now. Chrome will be different then. And installing Firefox or most any other browser than is pretty easy to slap into Ubuntu for anyone who doesn't like Chrome. unlike doing desktop changes which does cause issues.

Re:One more reason:

[luther349]

have to agree every relese seems to be a bigger and bigger misstep with more bugs. even if you go to the ubuntu irc support channels everyone there is running some sort of remix or not running any sort of ubuntu.

Re:One more reason:

[crhylove]

Excellent post man, even if it was a response to my obvious flamebait (tongue fully in cheek). Off to read the full article!!

Re:One more reason:

[Anonymous Coward]

> When I look at the bug queues on some packages

Which packages are the responsibility of Canonical? Very few.

Re:One more reason:

[opus_magnum]

I was under the impression that Linux Mint was merely Ubuntu with a green theme (and a few codecs installed by default).
Did I miss anything?

Re:One more reason:

[crhylove]

You've missed A LOT. They do use Ubuntu repos, for one version, however, they stuck with gnome 2, and a host of other better choices in the app stack. Then there's the Debian edition, the xfce edition.....

And every edition is superior to Ubuntu and every other distro on the market by leaps and bounds. You really need to get over there and check out Linux Mint right away. As of version 10 (it's currently at version 11), it is the best OS ever released, period, and I would easily put it up against any OS I have ever used, for any architecture.

Re:One more reason:

[Anonymous Coward]

Not listening worked great for Facebook... Their users were complaing about 'the new profile', threatening to quit and all that.In the end facebook ended up growing its userbase that year. Sometimes developers need to override the opinions of users.

Re:One more reason:

[opus_magnum]

What I said above is the conclusion I've come to after trying LM11: Natty without Unity but all the other defects.

Anyway I'd love to have an alternative like that, but let's not forget LinuxMint is pretty much a one-man-show. With gnome 2.x support dropping, is the guy actually going to write something that will mimick metacity on gnome 3 as he promised?

Re:One more reason:

[deuxm]

I totally agree with you. They don't listen and don't care about the community because they are trying to go over the chasm or something ... i think it's a stupid strategy for a open source project witch needs all the contributors it need. I can't code but i can translate things , many can design , and even more have ideas about Ubuntu. Those ideas should be spread to the community and discussed and then the best one implemented. I don't see this happening . Anyway i hope they pass the damned chasm whatever the hell is that.

Re:One more reason:

[crhylove]

One man show? There are more developers than Clem. And Clem always makes better decisions than Shuttleworth. According to most metrics Linux Mint is the #2 distro in the world, and growing fast. I don't think you gave it a thorough enough shot. It's more stable, faster, has a better default layout. It's got tons of advantages over every other distro I've tried. I install Linux Mint, I walk away and my client is happy indefinitely.

Re:One more reason:

[Compaqt]

What would be nice is for all the people upset with Ubuntu to switch to being either Mint or upstream (Debian) devs.

To me, Chrome still does not `cut it` [yet]...

[bogaboga]

While I appreciate the enormous strides Google and their Chrome team have achieved, the Chrome browser does not cut it in my case because: -

1: It still *is* an unfinished product...(read, "lacks print preview"). I understand this issue is now being addressed as of Chrome 13.0.782.1 Beta.

2: I find its interface weird...(consider what happens to the interface once extensions are installed).

Question: Is it just me?

Re:To me, Chrome still does not `cut it` [yet]...

[pnot]

I find print-to-PDF works as a print preview, albeit less convenient. But for a long time Chrome couldn't print to anything but US letter, which was a showstopper for me. (My Firefox still resets the page size to US letter once in a while, for unknown reasons.) Frankly I find that printing sucks on every web browser I've used -- if I want a half-decent printout, I paste the content into an OOWriter document and tweak it by hand.

Re:To me, Chrome still does not `cut it` [yet]...

[Bill_the_Engineer]

3: It doesn't render some websites correctly.

My default browser remains firefox for this reason.

Re:To me, Chrome still does not `cut it` [yet]...

[SanityInAnarchy]

In that case, I'd expect IE to be your default browser. Do you know that it's a bug in Chrome and not in the website?

I tend to use Chrome until a website actually breaks in a way that makes me try it in Firefox -- and then, half the time, it still won't work.

Re:To me, Chrome still does not `cut it` [yet]...

[jo_ham]

There are definitely some odd bugs still in Chrome regarding layout, since I use it side by side with Safari and they both share the same Webkit core (not literally on the machine, but both are webkit - you see what I mean), and I sometimes run across oddities in Chrome that necessitate me jumping over to Safari where they work fine.

It's mostly layout related issues, especially with printing pages, but with regular web layout too.

Re:To me, Chrome still does not `cut it` [yet]...

[Gazsi]

I can not specify a font per language in Chrome browser. I read the web in more than one language. For me this is a show-stopper.

It is overly simplistic, but at the same time you have to be an expert to figure out how to do simple things, like making your bookmark toolbar show up.

Re:To me, Chrome still does not `cut it` [yet]...

[Billly Gates]

I tried switching to Chrome for a month. I kept using IE 9 and Firefox 4.

Problems
1. Can't select my common websites with a mouse click within the address bar like IE, Firefox, ... hell even netscape 1.0.
- This drives me up the wall! I hate typing in the url each time I want to visit slashdot. Sure in Windows 7 I can right click the icon, but slashdot is not in the top 6 sites I visit and is not listed. This is not optional in MacOS or Linux
2. Why should I go into settings/preferences just to access my bookmarks?
- When I get them guess what? It blocks my whole view and creates an additional tab?? Why can't I have a window and look at them while I am on the same page?
3. No way to access history without going into setup/preferences.
- ... now before you whine hit Control H you retard!! .. the fact is I prefer and should not have to do that as a simple user. The fact is I can't convince my parents to use Chrome for that reason either. It is a gui after all.
4. No search bar pane
- No I wont
            a. click on the address bar
            b. Hit delete and erase the existing URL
            c. Then type what I want
            d. My existing page on the current tab is gone and replaced by google :-(
- Sorry I just type what I want in IE or Firefox in a search bar and BAM! A new tab opens up with search results and my existing page is still intact.

If Google or any Chromium developers are reading this you need to fix these before I and many others will switch. No Bogaboga you are not alone even though I tried for 3 weeks to switch to Chrome due to some Android development. I keep coming back to Firefox 4.

Re:To me, Chrome still does not `cut it` [yet]...

[rdnetto]

Before they implement Print Preview, they might want to fix the actual printing first. Try printing out a slashdot or wikipedia article in Chrome and compare the results to Firefox. The amount of paper it uses is ridiculous.

I agree the placement of the extension icons is a bit ridiculous. They should really be put into their own menu.

Re:To me, Chrome still does not `cut it` [yet]...

[kbrosnan]

Webkit is not some single idealized web parser. Just because something works in Safari when it is broken in Chrome does not mean it is not a webkit bug. Both Apple and Google ship different SVN checkouts of webkit to which they each apply some release specific patches.

Re:To me, Chrome still does not `cut it` [yet]...

[dbraden]

I might be able to offer something, either features you aren't aware of, or some workflow changes that accomplish much of the same. Or, if you're perfectly happy with FF, by all means, use it :)

For #1 (common web sites), the Tools menu (might be different on non-OSX) has an option to "Always Show Bookmark Bar" which is awesome.

That feature takes care of item #2 (bookmarks) for me, as well. I put my most common destinations as the first entries in my bookmark bar and now they are always just one click away. I can also access the non-bookmark-bar bookmarks from the bar as well (wow, that was weird to type!).

#3 (history): It's even stranger on OSX, as I have to use Cmd-Y to access the history (Cmd-H hides windows). That being said, yes, it's simple enough to remember, and I'm not trying to convince my parents to switch to Chrome. There are also a couple other ways to access history, though they have their limitations. In the URL bar, type in part of the domain name (or any other part of the url), and the drop down will include recent history matches that include what you typed.

You can also open a new tab, and it displays your most visited sites and a list of recently closed tabs (not exactly a "history", and it doesn't display very many, but can be useful).

#4 (search bar): I do my searching hitting Cmd-L or clicking in the address bar (no need to hit delete, as the current address is fully selected, so the first key i press will replace everything else), type what I want, and then Alt-Enter to open the search results in a new tab. So my search flow is:
a.) Cmd-L
b.) Type my search terms
c.) Alt-Enter to show results in new tab (or Cmd-Enter to load results in new tab but keep curent page displayed, or just Enter to replace current tab with search results)

Most of this works in FF as well (or at least something similar such as #4 would be Cmd-K to enter search box, and alt-enter to open results in new tab). Since I work in multiple browsers, I like to configure them as similar as practical, or at least learn the commands that let me do the same things.

Re:To me, Chrome still does not `cut it` [yet]...

[simmonsjeffreya]

What are you and all the people who replied to you already talking about? Google Chrome most certainly has a Print Preview function. http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/7210/screenshot20110614at309.png Notice the Preview button present in the Print dialogue box....

Re:To me, Chrome still does not `cut it` [yet]...

[timothyb89]

Running Chrome 13.0.772.0, both Bookmarks and History are accessible directly via the tools menu, no settings panel needed. I guess I could perhaps see putting a history or bookmarks button on the toolbar but personally I prefer it slightly (i.e. one extra button click) out of the way as I don't use either all that often.

As for searching, Ctrl+T, type query, [enter] opens up a search in a new page quite quickly. Even using the mouse goes pretty fast for the same purpose. Ctrl+L -> Type query -> [enter] is also pretty quick to search on the same page. For mouse users, a triple click in the address (in Linux, I believe it's just a single click in Windows) selects all text, and you can just type from there. I believe Firefox works mostly the same way, I've never known its search box to open a new tab by default.

For bookmarks, though it's not the best solution, you can drag the tab opened off the tab bar pretty easily, effectively achieving the same thing. And looking at the Print option now (for the OP), I have to say I love the new integrated Print and Preview, it's much more intuitive (IMO) than the Firefox alternative. And it also seems to be laying out pages far better (e.g. no overlapping elements on this page) but the complaint about a higher page count seems to be valid (24 vs 19 for Firefox).

Overall I think Chrome could certainly be more customizable, as the default behavior isn't a perfect fit for most users. But usually the interface will let you do what you want regardless of some of its behavior.

Re:To me, Chrome still does not `cut it` [yet]...

[Anonymous Coward]

3: Where is the File -> Send Link ... option? Currently I have to manually copy the link into my e-mail or IM program. Could be done better!
PS What happens in v13 when they remove the URL bar? How can I then forward the interesting article to a friend?

Re:To me, Chrome still does not `cut it` [yet]...

[pinkushun]

I was wondering about this, and if Chrome has layout rendering bugs, or if those bugs are hacks + work-arounds for other browsers.

http://acid3.acidtests.org/ agrees with the latter.

Re:To me, Chrome still does not `cut it` [yet]...

[Bill_the_Engineer]

In that case, I'd expect IE to be your default browser.

Why? I don't run windows and I already use firefox. Did you notice I already said firefox was my default browser?

Do you know that it's a bug in Chrome and not in the website?

Why should I care? Firefox renders the website correctly and the website is part of enterprise software that existed long before Chrome. If it renders correctly on IE and Firefox, why should the website rewrite its code to conform to the new kid on the block?

I tend to use Chrome until a website actually breaks in a way that makes me try it in Firefox -- and then, half the time, it still won't work.

I gave up on Chrome. It doesn't offer me anything that firefox can't already do. Also firefox has an extensive add on collection. It is extremely rare that I find a website that doesn't render correctly with firefox. In fact I can't remember the last time I had layout problems with firefox.

Re:To me, Chrome still does not `cut it` [yet]...

[Bill_the_Engineer]

Acid3 is nothing but a single measure of performance. It is useful when you want to create a benchmark that allows you to advertise how compatible your browser is to the upcoming or very current web standard. It doesn't measure the backward compatibility of that browser. One of the criteria for choosing a browser is "does it work with the websites that I need to visit?". I'm sure there are plenty of Google fans and geeks that insist on using the latest big thing to keep Chrome around. But for us old guys that have to use a web browser at work, Chrome just doesn't measure up.

Re:To me, Chrome still does not `cut it` [yet]...

[Rhaban]

Printing web sites is evil.

Re:To me, Chrome still does not `cut it` [yet]...

[SanityInAnarchy]

Do you know that it's a bug in Chrome and not in the website?

Why should I care?... If it renders correctly on IE and Firefox, why should the website rewrite its code to conform to the new kid on the block?

It shouldn't. It should rewrite its code to conform to the very old w3c standards, and then consider browser-specific hacks when something's broken. "Works best on Firefox" is no better than "Works best on IE", and every time a site does that, it's holding back development of the Web and web browsers.

That's why I asked, and that's why you should care. If the bug is in Chrome, then you and this website can safely ignore it, though the Chromium developers would probably appreciate a bug report. If the bug is in the website, particularly if it also relies on bugs in Firefox and IE, then it should be fixed, otherwise the site is likely to break anyway with some future version of Firefox or IE.

In fact I can't remember the last time I had layout problems with firefox.

I can barely remember the last time I had a layout problem with Chrome. I mean...

It doesn't offer me anything that firefox can't already do.

That's a valid reason. Giving up on it because one website would require you to run Firefox seems like a much less valid reason, if you actually saw an advantage to it.

On my system, Chrome boots much faster than Firefox, the multiple processes and JavaScript engine were significantly faster at the time (and does Firefox have out-of-process tabs yet?), the dev tools are as good as or better than Firebug for 90% of what I need as a web developer, and it has all the addons I need and it's easy to write what it doesn't have. It originally won me over when (before Jetpack for Firefox) I realize that I already knew how to write extensions for it, since the Chrome extension API is just a few Chrome-specific JavaScript APIs plus HTML5 -- I went from not knowing how to write an extension for any browser to having written my own functional adblocker in an afternoon.

I'm not trying to convince you to use Chrome, just pointing out -- those would be reasons to use it, and I can see similar reasons to use Firefox, including basic stuff like "print preview" (I honestly hadn't noticed, I don't really print much.) That a website is broken in one or the other is, to me, a reason to have multiple browsers available. I guess it comes down to, if you were on Windows, and forced to use a "Works best in IE6" website, would you run IE as your default browser, or would you run IETab?

Re:To me, Chrome still does not `cut it` [yet]...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's just you... what the heck are you printing from a browser?!

Re:To me, Chrome still does not `cut it` [yet]...

[Bill_the_Engineer]

I don't notice that much speed difference on my systems at work or home. I have enough headroom in my CPU when I'm not doing massive data processing that I believe even the slowest benchmarked web browser wouldn't be noticeable. I do have a netbook that I carry around with me, and Firefox 4 hasn't been noticeably slow on that one either.

I'm not advocating against Chrome (or Chromium). I just stated a reason why I stick with firefox. As for bug reports, unless the Chrome team know and have access to Deltek, I don't know how I would be able to help them (or have enough time to follow through).

let your users decide (or they will leave)

[t2t10]

Shuttleworth should much more rely on what users want, instead of making decisions for users.

Canonical can tell what users want based on usage statistics. Once close to 30-50% of users post-install Chrome or Unity, with a growing trend, then consider making these things the default. Until then, keep the old, tried and true the default.

Re:let your users decide (or they will leave)

[Haedrian]

Argument is very flawed.

Not all Linux users are 'nerdy' enough to want to play around with a different browser. Some just want to stay with the default. Same for other applications.

With your same argument I could say that IE is the best browser, because for many years it held more than 50-70% of internet users.

Re:let your users decide (or they will leave)

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. Not only that, but if users know what they want, installation is too easy. if they are too lazy to install a browser they really want, they should be too lazy to complain.

Re:let your users decide (or they will leave)

[t2t10]

Not all Linux users are 'nerdy' enough to want to play around with a different browser. Some just want to stay with the default. Same for other applications.

And they should get the tried and true, instead of whbatever a geek like Shuttleworth happens to like these days.

With your same argument I could say that IE is the best browser, because for many years it held more than 50-70% of internet users.

Stop hallucinating and putting words in my mouth. Where did I make an argument anywhere that more users for software means that something is better? I didn't even use those numbers.

I said that Shuttleworth shouldn't willy-nilly replace software because he thinks something is better, he should rely on actual statistics. Before even considering making something the default, it should have a substantial and growing user base. Whether that's 20%, 30%, or 50% is debatable.

What's not debatable is that imposing beta quality software with no user base just because someone happens to package a distribution is a lousy idea.

Re:let your users decide (or they will leave)

[Howitzer86]

With the exception of Android phone & tablet owners, I thought almost all Linux users were 'nerdy'.

Re:let your users decide (or they will leave)

[pinkushun]

Pointing out that this (if it happens) will only apply to _new_ installs.

If you upgrade from a previous release, it will keep your existing applications.

This is how it's done'

Re:let your users decide (or they will leave)

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, that's not how it works in the real world.

And why should new users be saddled with immature and badly chosen applications anyway?

Re:let your users decide (or they will leave)

[Anonymous Coward]

First, I tip my hat to the most witty comeback I've seen all week: "With the exception of Android phone & tablet owners, I thought almost all Linux users were 'nerdy'." ...sorta destroys Haedrian's point. Or his wall? Linux users are not Windoze users; how dare you compare us? (and even Windows users are DL'in IE replacements in large numbers now, when you add up all of Opera, FF, Chrom(ium), etc page-visits.

How about chrome as default for 1 release, with FF as a downloadable option in the Kicker/start menu (or make chrome testable online, like Wubi)... ...then for the next release, a choice of KDE with FF, or KDE with Chrome, then see which gets downloaded more. (and dump Gnome, it's only suitable for children, great-grandparents, brain-fried crack addicts, people who ride the short bus, or Third World indigents who've never seen a real computer).

Make your own

[Anonymous Coward]

Take the gecko or webkit source, make your own shell, call it UNity Internet eXplorer (UNIX), bundle it up for only using with Ubuntu/Unity and leave the real browsers for the grown ups.

Re:It's Fx, not FF

[Anonymous Coward]

It's Ff, everyone knows this. Fx makes no sense at all, and the fact you have to go clear back to the 1.5 release to come up with that proves how silly a little troll you're being.

In short, Fxck you!

Sorry dude

[motang]

Even if this happens, which I think it might, I am still going to use Firefox. Firefox 4 is awesome, and I do like Chorme, but then again I also like Opera since version 10 and I still use Firefox as it just works for me.

Re:ask

[TaoPhoenix]

If I skip your derp comment, I've always said I've gotta be the central midline Linux target. I need a little help, but I'm no turbo-newbie either.

Firefox was my learning gateway to ditch IE. Cue the extensions. So I don't have mutch patience for the new fad of "OMG Chrome is 6% faster". Anyone that fickle is in trouble in other areas.

To get a Linux distro going, SOMETHING has to be stable. I'm already wrestling over the desktop environment question. KDE isn't perfect. I'm just about to try XKCE or LX-something etc. I need the browser to stay put in all of this.

Re:bathe my feet in piss

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you, Mark! Now we understand that until a piss-resistant smartphone comes out, you won't be having one. Safe to say you'll be waiting a while.

Also, gives some insight into the mentality behind Unity.

Re:ask

[aztracker1]

I like chrome a little better... also a fan of "always up to date" as the default to avoid a 6+ year old browser being an option too.

I dont know about any one else but...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about anyone else but I DO NOT like Shuttleworth's vision for Linux.
Ubuntu keeps encouraging integration with the cloud, and keeps trying to OVER- simplify everything. Needless to say I got tired of it.
I jumped ship to Linux Mint a few releases ago and never looked back. Almost all the software I want is installed by default. There is only one thing I have to change (different Google results page) instead of dozens.
Last time I installed Ubuntu it took so long to correct the new "better" default options that it was like installing windows.

Anon

Re:ask

[cgenman]

Chrome's interface and stability are what eventually won me over. It really does simplify the browser interface down to what is needed.

Re:ask

[kbrosnan]

Being 6 years out of date has never been a problem for a browser on an up to date version of Ubuntu,

Sort the bloody tab key out

[sqldr]

The URL bar doesn't do tab-completion. It was reported as a wishlist bug to replace the non-useful "tab to search" feature and after a very long discussion got marked as "WONTFIX" because "the tab key is already overloaded". Yeah, thanks to you you fuckers. You have to take your fingers off the home keys and use the down arrow. Very frustrating, and I'm so used to hitting tab to go to URLs I forget, so the browser is unusable to me. You can't even configure it. there's no "keyboard shortcuts" panel. Until I can use tab completion, the browser is utterly uninteresting to me.

Re:Sort the bloody tab key out

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh? The tab key is for moving focus to the next control. How would you make the url bar do tab completion without breaking the UI standard?

Users Will Give Up on Ubuntu

[BrendaEM]

Mark,
Can you alienate people any faster?
Why not join Oracle while you are at it.

user base

[Anonymous Coward]

The most recent stats I could find (May 2011) show FF at 21.7% and Chrome at 12.5%. If you don't think 12.5% is "substantial", I'm not sure that 21.7% could be called "substantial" either. And Chrome is most certainly growing, far more so than any other browser. I would be very surprised if it doesn't pass FF by the end of 2012. So if "relying on actual statistics" is how Shuttleworth should pick a default browser, it would seem he is just planning ahead based on very clear market trends.

But I think the decision should be about what is better, not what has the biggest market share, and in my opinion chromium is the best browser for routine use. I use FF for a few odd cases where chromium still has problems.

Re:user base

[t2t10]

So if "relying on actual statistics" is how Shuttleworth should pick a default browser, it would seem he is just planning ahead based on very clear market trends.

Just because Shuttleworth's decisions sometimes agree accidentally with some statistics doesn't mean he picks by statistics.

But I think the decision should be about what is better,

"Better" for who and according to what criteria? Many users want something that just works, not something with more features.

and in my opinion chromium is the best browser for routine use

In my opinion too. But opinions shouldn't count much, actual usage, feedback, and user needs should. I don't know what the effect is of switching a large user base from Firefox to Chrome by default. Are there common extensions a lot of people use that don't exist for Chrome? Are there usability problems that you and I don't know about yet?

Shuttleworth should look at usage and ask its users instead of deciding ex cathedra like he's the Pope. And he should justify and communicate clearly what user needs major changes address.

No proxy settings

[Anonymous Coward]

It's no use to me until it gains a proxy settings dialog. FF allows me to change my proxy settings as required:- no proxy, my usual proxy, the proxy into the lab - all in the firefox network settings. What's all this about?

When running Chromium under a supported desktop environment, the system proxy settings will be used. However, either your system is not supported or there was a problem while launching your system configuration.

But you can still configure via the command line. Please see man chromium-browser for more information on flags and environment variables.

I have more use for a chocolate teapot.

Funded by Google for 7 years - not 15

[Sits]

According to this article the Mozilla foundation started being funded by Google in 2004. Firefox was originally started while it was still in AOL back in 2002 so at most it could have only been funded by Google for at most 9 years :-). Google provide 86% of Mozilla's funding back in 2009 but those are the latest results I could find.

Chrome is badly translated to other languages

[Anonymous Coward]

Most of the applications in Ubuntu suffer from bad translations: sometimes the language is wrong (usually because someone tried to reuse an English translation from one part of the application, or another application, somewhere where it doesn't belong, or because an application changed its modus operandi so that the old translation doesn't apply any longer, or someone translated the English sentence without looking how it was used in the application; most languages is not as indistinct as English, you can't use drop-in translations from English to other languages, you have to look at the context), sometimes sentences get truncated or white space is misleading, because the application UI is made only for English. Firefox is by no means an exception, but it is perhaps the application that have best support for most languages in the Ubuntu suit.

Just so all you monoglots realise how bad Google Chrom-e/-ium is. Remember when Japanese gadgets came with machine translated instructions to English in the late 1980's. The translations of Google Chrom-e/-ium is inferior to those.

E.g. Every time I open a new page in Chromium, I'm asked if I want to translate the page for them. What Chromium really mean is if I want to have the page translated.

Disastrous news

[dugeen]

This really is bad news, Chrome is a dreadful browser with its missing menus and propensity for phoning home every few minutes. The experience of trying Chrome on Windows, where it secretly installed two services to keep itself updated, and a hidden scheduled task to reinstall the services, has convinced me that no free software project should have any kind of association with Google whatever.

Re:Disastrous news

[pinkushun]

Some like the minimalist approach to less menus; keyboard navigation trumps trackpads on netbooks, for example.

All the browser phone-home calls are known and not a secret, so where do you find this mysterious information that it's a concern?

You ran free software on a non-free OS? Your argument is invalid. Hand over your geek badge! ;P

Re:Disastrous news

[Anonymous Coward]

This really is bad news, Chrome is a dreadful browser with its missing menus and propensity for phoning home every few minutes. The experience of trying Chrome on Windows, where it secretly installed two services to keep itself updated, and a hidden scheduled task to reinstall the services, has convinced me that no free software project should have any kind of association with Google whatever. Your bitching about Google while your OS is running WGACheck.exe ? Face it, you run Windows, its not your computer.

Failure of Logic

[EmagGeek]

The statement that "The chrome experience on Linux is better than the Chrome experience on any other platform" does not imply that "The Chrome experience on Linux is better than the Firefox experience on Linux."

sad

[Anonymous Coward]

sad............Firefox is slow slow death

Is ubuntu not Linux

[Dusanyu]

'Chrome on Ubuntu and Chrome on Linux is a better experience than Chrome on any other platform [i.e. Windows and Mac].' he almost acts like Ubuntu is something other than Yet another Linux distro. with that statement.

Spyware

[fragfoo]

Thats the reason not to adopt chrome and stick with a non spying fox. Apart from that and the lack of the FF extensions we learned to love, i actually like chrome.

'Chrome on Ubuntu and Chrome on Linux is a better?

[GrandTeddyBearOfDoom]

'Chrome on Ubuntu and Chrome on Linux is a better experience than Chrome on any other platform??

Won't happen until fonts on free operating systems get better.  I am writing this on a Ubuntu VMWare image running on a mac and, on the mac the text just looks prettier.

Umm...why?

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean, Google can't even get the page settings functionality in there so you can have it NOT print out crap in all 4 corners of a printed page....why would they go and do something dumb like that....

Except your basic thesis is wrong.

[sgtrock]

Facebook is actually losing customers in North America and Europe.

How much $ did Google unleash to spy on its users?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sincerely why would somebody use Chrome when there are way better FOSS browsers out there, like Firefox & lynx?

The only time I ever use Chrome...

[Unitedroad]

... is when I need its incognito window to watch porn

i do chrome

[Anonymous Coward]

with ubuntu with excellent results. and chrome seems to be getting more secure, almost daily

Wait a min

[dogx]

Why not keep them both?

I did the reverse

[Anonymous Coward]

I just ditched Chrome for Firefox, purely and simply because of all the problems it's giving me with one plugin: Adobe Flash Player. Constantly hangs, regularly crashes the browser, doesn't restore functionality on browser restart. When you consider how much of the Internet uses Flash, it renders Chrome practically useless as a browser until these flaws are resolved.

alt.chrome.die.die.die

[pugugly]

Everytime I use Chrome (or indeed have an article comparing Firefox to Chrome anymore) I learn to abhor it that little bit more.

If chrome were a car it would 'upgraded' to a different model every six months, while they slowly pulled out your manual transmission for an automatic, accelerator for cruise control, steering wheel for google maps integration, brakes for collision detection, windshield for a blank screen, all while for some godawful reason telling you how good you have it why would you need any of those to drive.

I liked chrome as a concept originally, but for the love of god enough already. I'll stay with Firefox thank you very much.

Pug

Re:alt.chrome.die.die.die

[Shoe Puppet]

Everytime I use Chrome (or indeed have an article comparing Firefox to Chrome anymore) I learn to abhor it that little bit more.

If chrome were a car it would 'upgraded' to a different model every six months, while they slowly pulled out your manual transmission for an automatic, accelerator for cruise control, steering wheel for google maps integration, brakes for collision detection, windshield for a blank screen, all while for some godawful reason telling you how good you have it why would you need any of those to drive.

...and that's why it fits so well into Ubuntu.

BeeRowserzzzz.

[warrenG]

What de Hell does it matter what default? I Chromie, you Foxy, WTF? Waste of bandwidth.