Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
If he likes Chrome so much, why not invest in developing FOSS browser based on Chromium?
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
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.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
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
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?
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
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.
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.)
Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.