Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Shuttleworth: Chrome Nearly Replaced FF In Ubuntu

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the chrome's-not-bad-at-all dept.

Chrome 204

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.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

NoScript? (3, Interesting)

Ironchew (1069966) | more than 3 years ago | (#36430238)

Does Chrome have a flexible JavaScript blocker like NoScript yet?

Re:NoScript? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36430308)

Does Chrome have a flexible JavaScript blocker like NoScript yet?

Yes. [google.com]

Re:NoScript? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36430414)

Almost, but not really [informaction.com] .

Re:NoScript? (4, Informative)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 3 years ago | (#36430510)

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? (2)

toastar (573882) | more than 3 years ago | (#36430826)

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? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36431642)

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? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36432694)

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

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

Re:NoScript? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36430418)

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

Re:NoScript? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36430536)

Not really.
That extension appears to be dead (hasn't been updated since Sept 2010).
It also doesn't prevent "onclick" javascript [google.com] . 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? (2)

PwnzerDragoon (2014464) | more than 3 years ago | (#36431588)

There's also this version [google.com] , 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? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36431664)

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? (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#36432204)

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? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36430316)

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? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36430372)

Yes, NotScripts [google.com] .

Re:NoScript? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36430410)

Chrome (i.e. google) is spyware built in as standard. I can choose to go to the web site www.google.com and I do, but I don't want it built into the browser. Its google after all, they try to intergrate data gathering into everything they do. Look at how Android includes data gathering implicit in so many of its apps. (And I have an Android phone), but I know I cannot trust it privacy wise. But I do not want Chrome embedded into Linux as my browser and Ubuntu was convenient as it was without Chrome. So if they put Chrome into Ubuntu, I will get my version of Linux elsewhere, as I wouldn't trust Shuttleworth to want to slip in other Google "services" i.e. implicit spyware for more deals with Google and lets face it, that is what he is fishing for here. He wants Google to give him some money to include Chrome.

Firefox? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36430264)

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.

It's Fx, not FF (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36430268)

I hope it will happen.

"How do I capitalize Firefox? How do I abbreviate it?
Only the first letter is capitalized (so it's Firefox, not FireFox.) The preferred abbreviation is "Fx" or "fx"."

http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/releases/1.5.html

Re:It's Fx, not FF (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36431190)

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!

Chrome OSS? (1)

steevven1 (1045978) | more than 3 years ago | (#36430274)

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

right then (0)

mirix (1649853) | more than 3 years ago | (#36430276)

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 (3, Insightful)

__Paul__ (1570) | more than 3 years ago | (#36430538)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36431184)

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 (1)

wintersdark (1635191) | more than 3 years ago | (#36430600)

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 (1)

PwnzerDragoon (2014464) | more than 3 years ago | (#36431608)

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 (1)

aztracker1 (702135) | more than 3 years ago | (#36432434)

Doesn't have adobe flash or pdf iirc.

Re:right then (1)

bhcompy (1877290) | more than 3 years ago | (#36432820)

Can be added no problem

Re:right then (5, Insightful)

khellendros1984 (792761) | more than 3 years ago | (#36430666)

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 (1)

kj_kabaje (1241696) | more than 3 years ago | (#36431170)

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

Re:right then (1)

mirix (1649853) | more than 3 years ago | (#36431314)

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:ask (2)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#36431552)

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:ask (1)

aztracker1 (702135) | more than 3 years ago | (#36432444)

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.

Re:ask (1)

kbrosnan (880121) | more than 3 years ago | (#36432898)

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

Re:ask (1)

cgenman (325138) | more than 3 years ago | (#36432862)

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

Re:right then (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36431832)

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

Re:right then (1)

RobbieThe1st (1977364) | more than 3 years ago | (#36432408)

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 (2)

cgenman (325138) | more than 3 years ago | (#36432822)

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.

Sort the bloody tab key out (1)

sqldr (838964) | more than 3 years ago | (#36432924)

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.

I'd miss the Firefox addons (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 3 years ago | (#36430290)

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 (1)

drb226 (1938360) | more than 3 years ago | (#36430580)

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 (1)

br4nd0nh3at (1082179) | more than 3 years ago | (#36431348)

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

Chromium? (5, Insightful)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 3 years ago | (#36430336)

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

Re:Chromium? (2)

markkezner (1209776) | more than 3 years ago | (#36431140)

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? (0)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 3 years ago | (#36431478)

Ugg... did I mention forking?

Re:Chromium? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36431716)

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? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36432246)

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

Re:Chromium? (1)

whiteboy86 (1930018) | more than 3 years ago | (#36432602)

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

Fox In the Henhouse (2, Interesting)

Scarletdown (886459) | more than 3 years ago | (#36430394)

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 (1)

kvvbassboy (2010962) | more than 3 years ago | (#36430420)

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 (1)

jfp51 (64421) | more than 3 years ago | (#36430424)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36430772)

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 (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36430596)

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 (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36431110)

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 (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36431144)

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 (2)

cbhacking (979169) | more than 3 years ago | (#36431524)

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 (0)

Lazy Jones (8403) | more than 3 years ago | (#36431338)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36431708)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36432288)

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

Re:Fox In the Henhouse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36432366)

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 (1)

aztracker1 (702135) | more than 3 years ago | (#36432466)

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

Re:Fox In the Henhouse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36432318)

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

Re:Fox In the Henhouse (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36432842)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36431242)

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 (1)

cgenman (325138) | more than 3 years ago | (#36432872)

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.

Brands (1)

Wowsers (1151731) | more than 3 years ago | (#36430436)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36431344)

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 (1)

lostmongoose (1094523) | more than 3 years ago | (#36432220)

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.

JOYGASM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36430446)

no yuo!

Cause Google does no evil... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36430574)

Enough said.

Summary (1)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 3 years ago | (#36430594)

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 (1)

vlueboy (1799360) | more than 3 years ago | (#36431048)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36432216)

... geeks user Firefox too.

Re:Summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36432506)

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 (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 3 years ago | (#36432648)

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!

The Cloud vs. Free Software (2, Insightful)

tbf (462972) | more than 3 years ago | (#36430616)

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...

One more reason: (1, Flamebait)

crhylove (205956) | more than 3 years ago | (#36430618)

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

Re:One more reason: (5, Insightful)

grcumb (781340) | more than 3 years ago | (#36431000)

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 [imagicity.com] I wrote after 11.04 was released.)

Re:One more reason: (1)

luther349 (645380) | more than 3 years ago | (#36431840)

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: (1)

crhylove (205956) | more than 3 years ago | (#36432700)

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: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36432818)

> When I look at the bug queues on some packages

Which packages are the responsibility of Canonical? Very few.

Re:One more reason: (1)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 3 years ago | (#36431354)

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.

bathe my feet in piss (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36430624)

it's the only way to go! piss on my scarf when i'm in the WILD and I'll howl for hours!

Re:bathe my feet in piss (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36432316)

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.

To me, Chrome still does not `cut it` [yet]... (3, Interesting)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 3 years ago | (#36430734)

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]... (1)

pnot (96038) | more than 3 years ago | (#36431278)

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]... (1)

Bill_the_Engineer (772575) | more than 3 years ago | (#36431556)

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]... (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 3 years ago | (#36431878)

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]... (1)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 3 years ago | (#36432502)

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]... (1)

Gazsi (2171044) | more than 3 years ago | (#36432666)

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]... (2)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 3 years ago | (#36432788)

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]... (1)

rdnetto (955205) | more than 3 years ago | (#36432928)

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.

let your users decide (or they will leave) (2)

t2t10 (1909766) | more than 3 years ago | (#36430846)

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) (4, Informative)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#36430980)

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) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36431228)

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) (2, Insightful)

t2t10 (1909766) | more than 3 years ago | (#36431558)

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) (1)

Howitzer86 (964585) | more than 3 years ago | (#36432546)

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

Make your own (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36430862)

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.

Sorry dude (1)

motang (1266566) | more than 3 years ago | (#36431460)

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.

in other words... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36431584)

shuttleworth is saying "we wanna fuck around with your browser next"

WOW orginal Brainetics 40% OFF (-1, Offtopic)

brainetics (2263974) | more than 3 years ago | (#36431972)

Free Shipping Brainetics Secrets 40% OFF For Sale www.mathfeats.com 100% original! Free Shipping! 40$ OFF! Best Servces! Paypal! www.mathfeats.com brainetics,brainetics secrets,brainetics discount,brainetics wholesale brainetics playbook,brainetics workbook,brainetics wiki

I dont know about any one else but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36432664)

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

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?