Oh boy here comes yahooo

[Fintan]

I just fell across this:
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pag...item&px=NzkyNg

I hate yahoo and will never use it but no thankx canonical.

Lets see what you have to say

[miKeyBabid]

Re: Oh boy here comes yahooo

Well, I don't use firefox but i guess i'll give my two cents worth anyway... First off, I don't really care for yahoo, but then I don't exactly trust google either (even if I use google quite regularly). I'm also not against Canonical making an agreement with yahoo. However, my only concern is that they are "aggressively" exploiting the default seach engine to make more money. If they want to have an agreement with yahoo (or google for that matter) at least let us choose our search engine the first time we run firefox.

I've always been critical of Microsoft for packaging IE as Window's default browser - even if the user has the choice to change browsers at a later stage. I guess this just sounds like a similar ploy where Canonical is counting on its users being too lazy or unwitting to change... a little "Microsoftian" perhaps ?

[kubicle]

Re: Oh boy here comes yahooo

I'm not a big fan of some of Canonical policies, but I don't think this one is that much different from mozilla setting the firefox default engine to google (for revenue).

An annoyance to some, no doubt, but it should be easily configurable with a few mouse clicks...and it should be noted that if the user has already changed the default to something else than google, it won't be changed...the system default is changed, not user configuration.

I don't use firefox, so I won't see the change...but I don't use google either. I've been using scroogle, which seems to be google search without the "evil" parts (cookies, adds, data collection).
https://ssl.scroogle.org/, http://www.scroogle.org/

[dibl]

Re: Oh boy here comes yahooo

I voted "YES", but I'm pretty close to "don't care". These things tend to change over time, and you can't fall in love with today's popular tool. I remember thinking Winamp was an essential accessory on my computer -- haven't seen it in 4 or 5 years now.

[Qqmike]

Re: Oh boy here comes yahooo

I just tried kubicle's scroogle on some research topics and I like it a lot.

[toad]

Re: Oh boy here comes yahooo

I voted "use other" 'cos I'm green http://uk.forestle.org/

[blobfish]

Re: Oh boy here comes yahooo

guy on slashdot was recommending.
http://ixquick.com/
I don't have an opinion yet.
remember what kurt cobain said
"just because your paranoid, don't mean they're not after you"

[Fintan]

Re: Oh boy here comes yahooo

Another comment:
http://blog.internetnews.com/skerner...zilla-wit.html

[Telengard]

Re: Oh boy here comes yahooo

I don't really care for yahoo, but then I don't exactly trust google either (even if I use google quite regularly). I'm also not against Canonical making an agreement with yahoo. However, my only concern is that they are "aggressively" exploiting the default seach engine to make more money. If they want to have an agreement with yahoo (or google for that matter) at least let us choose our search engine the first time we run firefox.

^QFT

Another example of Canonical trying to generate ad revenue with Firefox was the infamous multisearch add-on.

I'm fine with Canonical trying to make some revenue, but not with a force-installed browser search hijacker that uselessly loads a page in a new tab, changes the search box, and removes search functions while showing me more ads.

ixquick FTW!

You have a right to privacy.
Your search data should never fall into the wrong hands.
The only real solution is quickly deleting your data or not storing them to begin with.
In June 2006 we started to delete our users' privacy data within 48 hrs.
As of January 2009 we do not even record our users' IP addresses at all anymore.
We are the first and only search engine to do so.

I really dislike having my software tampered with in a lame attempt to generate revenue. Spyware and adware is one of my most important reasons for fleeing Windoze. Canonical doing things like this gives me the creeps.

[GreyGeek]

Re: Oh boy here comes yahooo

You've only seen the tip of the iceberg, folks.

It appears that Shuttlesworth has decided on a plan to monitize Canonical/Ubuntu, and it centers on the "Software Center", previously known as the "Software Store" but (apparently?) renamed because of some objections raised. Even though the name has changed the purpose remains the same, however. There is a mockup of Version 4 of the Software Center application (looks similar to Synaptic) here.

Bradly H Kuhn sees the path Canonical/Ubuntu is following and has decided to switch to Debian. He lists several reasons:

Sadly, though, a for-profit, corporate-controlled distribution can never remain community-oriented. A for-profit company is eventually always going to put the acquisition of wealth above any community principle. So it has become with Ubuntu, in my view. The time has come (for me, at least) to go back to a truly community-oriented, software-freedom-respecting distribution. (Hopefully, I'll also never be tempted to leave again.)

I didn't take this decision lightly, and didn't take it for only one reason. I've gone back to Debian for three (now) five specific reasons:

* UbuntuOne's server side system is proprietary software with no prospects of liberation. This has been exacerbated since Canonical now heavily focuses on strong integration of UbuntuOne into the desktop for the Lucid release. It seems clear that one of Canonical's top goals is to convince every Ubuntu user to rely regularly on new proprietary software and services.0
* Canonical has become too aggressive with community-unfriendly copyright assignment policies. Copyright assignment on Free Software can be put to good uses. However, most for-profit corporations design their copyright assignment process primarily to circumvent the company's potential copyleft obligations; Canonical's copyright assignment is sadly typical in that regard. Even worse, Canonical's management has become increasingly more aggressive in pressuring the community into accepting such copyright assignment policies as a fait accompli. (I'll likely write more on this issue this year, but in the meantime, my “Open Core” Is the New Shareware, Michael Meeks' Thoughts on Copyright Assignment, Dave Neary's Copyright assignment and other barriers to entry, and this LWN article are all good “further reading” resources.)
* The line between ‘restricted’ and ‘main’ has become far too blurry. I was very glad when I first saw Ubuntu's “you're about to install restricted drivers” warning window, and I find that a good way to deal with the issue. However, there are many times (particularly during initial install) when Ubuntu doesn't even inform the user that proprietary software has been installed. I realize that there's a reasonable trade-off between (a) making someone's hardware work (so they don't think Microsoft is better merely because “it works”) and (b) having a fully FaiF system. However, this trade-off is only reasonable when the users are told clearly that they own hardware made by vendors opposed to software freedom. If the users never know, how will they know what hardware to avoid in the future?
* Updated on 2010-01-19: This one is less of an issue to me than the others, but it shows the same pattern of "Let's do more proprietary software on our platform" that Red Hat went through in the 1990s. Namely, Canonical is now directly encouraging customers to run proprietary software on Ubuntu.
* Updated on 2010-01-25: osamak kindly pointed out that Canonical also has plans to offer a facility for installing third-party proprietary software, called the “Software Center”. This appears to be similar to services that help install proprietary software on GNU/Linux systems such as Linspire's system and Click-and-Run.

When considering all this and taking a step back and look at the status of major distributions, my honest assessment is this: among the two primary corporate-controlled-but-dabbling-in-community-orientation distributions (aka Fedora and Ubuntu), Fedora is clearly much more software-freedom-friendly. Nevertheless, since I've twice gone corporate and ultimately regretted it, I decided it was time to go back home — back to Debian.

In support Kuhn cites the IBM Symphony Support deal, and information from the new Software Center RoadMap.

Johnathan Carter, posting on the ubuntu-dev, list made an interesting comment.

Basically, I've never been against buying proprietary software. There are areas in which NO useful Linux solution is available, like writing for Programming Logic Controllers. HOWEVER, and it is a BIG however, I will ALWAYS be against being FORCED to use proprietary software. That is why I am against making MONO the default Linux desktop API. If you don't think MONO isn't proprietary you don't understand its relationship to .NET, and Microsoft control over .NET and thus MONO. The H.264 is about lenient licensing terms, IN THE BEGINNING, followed later by EXTORTIONARY terms once it become impossible to switch. MONO is "GPL" now, but after Microsoft asserts its patent claims the GPL will mean nothing. IF Microsoft made .NET available under Linux as a proprietary application that I could purchase and use to run .NET applets that I can download or purchase I would consider buying it if those applets filled a need that FOSS didn't or couldn't fill.

As long as I can remove any piece of software which is proprietary or pseudo GPL and my distro still runs fine then I remain unconcerned. When I am forced to use MONO or UbuntuOne or any other proprietary software in order to run a "free" Ubuntu or Kubuntu then I shall chose another distro. If Canonical wants to make Ubuntu into a commercial distro like Linden or Mandriva then good luck with that competition. I would never buy Linden but I have purchased Mandriva, more than once.

As Bradly H Kuhn wrote, "A for-profit company is eventually always going to put the acquisition of wealth above any community principle". If they try to "end run" the GPL, like Novell/Microsoft did, then they have earned my internal distrust, because the end of that path leads to slavery.

[verndog]

Re: Oh boy here comes yahooo

I remove Firefox and install Chrome on every install, so this is a non issue for me.

[Snowhog]

Re: Oh boy here comes yahooo

I like Google. They've become big (monolithic). They're 'corporate' and into making $$$, but that's what the free market is all about. Google works for me. It is the search engine of choice for me.

[Telengard]

Re: Oh boy here comes yahooo

I like Google. They've become big (monolithic). They're 'corporate' and into making $$$, but that's what the free market is all about. Google works for me. It is the search engine of choice for me.

I don't think anyone would argue that Google is not good search, or that they have not brought great software technologies to us. Some of us are just more sensitive to the idea of having data about our activities compiled and sold to advertisers (and maybe the government), even if it is supposedly done anonymously.

[MoonRise]

Re: Oh boy here comes yahooo

I voted "YES", but I'm pretty close to "don't care". These things tend to change over time, and you can't fall in love with today's popular tool.

I agree with that statement. It can always be changed. If they made it where you couldn't change it then that is whole different story.

[lcorken]

Re: Oh boy here comes yahooo

I don't even use the search bar. To search I click google.com in bookmarks. Don't know why, genetic defect maybe.

When I first used a search engine (about 100 years ago windows 3.1) my son told me about google and yahoo. I didn't know what to search for so I entered my last name.
Yahoo mostly showed me where I could buy myself on the internet.
Google had links to family tree stuff and some stuff in German.
At that point I decided google was more useful and have always used it.

As far as Canonical making a few buck with the Yahoo deal? Well, ya gotta pay the bills one way or the other.