Submitted by For the longest time, the default search provider in Ubuntu Linux has been Google, but this is going to change in the next release, Lucid Lynx, scheduled to release April 29. The change comes after Canonical has signed a revenue sharing deal with Yahoo!, so you can imagine who the new default search provider will be.
The change was announced on the ubuntu-desktop mailing list by Rick Spencer. The gist of it all is that the default search provider in the little Firefox search box will be changed from Google to Yahoo!. In addition, Firefox’ default home page (the search page thing) will respect the user’s choice of default search provider.
Spencer was adamant to emphasise that users cans till change the default search provider to Google with just two clicks. “It’s literally 2 easily discoverable clicks to change this setting, a simple matter of switching to that search provider in the [search box] by clicking on the icon and choosing the desired provider,” he explains, “Note also that Yahoo! does not share any personally identifiable or usage information.”
The reason for this change is obvious and understandable: Yahoo! has signed a revenue sharing agreement with Ubuntu, which is good for the Linux distribution. “I am pursuing this change because Canonical has negotiated a revenue sharing deal with Yahoo! and this revenue will help Canonical to provide developers and resources to continue the open development of Ubuntu and the Ubuntu Platform,” Spencer explains, “This change will help provide these resources as well as continuing to respect our user’s default search across Firefox.”
sudo apt-get remove firefox-3.5 is my favourite command anyway, preferably executed right after installing Chrome, so it bears no relevance on me. I know I’m a minority though, so how about all of you? How do you feel about this change?
Posting this from Chrome on Ubuntu, this doesn’t effect me either.
There’s a lot of talk about Chrome in tech oriented user forums. Probably I’m simply getting too old (afraid so ), but as an Opera and occasional Firefox user I have some trouble seeing the specialness of Chrome. I mean, I tried it, it looks nice, but to me as a more or less normal user it just looks like, well, like a browser. Just like IE and Safari are browsers as well.
What’s the part this poor fellow doesn’t understand? What sets Chrome apart from the rest of the bunch?
I’m a long-time Firefox user and still love that browser, though much of my love for it is with the plug-ins and customizations. Now that Chrome has has the capability to add just about all of the plug-ins I’ve been using in Firefox, I’ve found myself giving it a shot.
It does use a LOT more memory than Firefox, though that is not really much of an issue for me because every computer I use regularly has at least 2 GB of RAM (8GB on my main box). As for what makes Chrome “better”, I’m still figuring that out. All I know is that I continue to find no reason to ever use IE on Windows.
Edited 2010-01-28 16:46 UTC
Chrome looks like it’s going to be a bad choice for Ubuntu, since they are going to have the video tag in HTML 5 use the h.264 codec, which costs $5,000,000 a year to distribute, and Google’s licensing does not extend to downstream third parties (read: Ubuntu and other distros).
Give Firefox another chance – it has improved immensely with the 3.6 release.
Personally, after using Chrome and Safari a lot over the last year or so, I’ve switched back to Firefox due to it’s great speed, and lessened memory usage, improvements.
As for Ubuntu defaulting to Yahoo search – seems natural to go with that, since there is revenue sharing, and the h.264 issue (that Google is supporting).
Plus, Yahoo is getting it’s act together again. They’ve just announced improved quarterly results. Carol Bartz seems to have her act together as a CEO.
Ever hear of Chromium? The FOSS project that is essentially Chrome? It contains the ogg codec only and is free to use and it is probably what most distros will ship.
Google Chrome is just a “distro” of chromimum with official google branding and extras like h.264.
Eh? Why wouldn’t they change their Chrome package to match your search provider settings? That just seems odd.
Chrome isn’t distributed as part of Ubuntu. You get it via Google, and it’s updated via Google’s repository.
I think you’re forgetting the word “yet” somewhere there. Once Chrome stabilizes a bit more, why wouldn’t it be pulled into the standard Ubuntu repo? And once that happens why wouldn’t they set Yahoo as default?
Because Chrome can’t be included in Ubuntu’s repositories, not even the partner ones, due to the h264 license. Only Google may distribute it.
But they can include Chromium, the open source part of Chrome, and choose whether they want to compile it with h264 support or not. There is even a PPA repository with daily snapshots where the codecs are optional (free or nonfree).
https://launchpad.net/~chromium-daily/+archive/ppa
Edit: fixed a typo
Edited 2010-01-27 17:39 UTC
But they can include Chromium, the open source part of Chrome, and choose whether they want to compile it with h264 support or not. There is even a PPA repository with daily snapshots where the codecs are optional (free or nonfree).
It’s still illegal to use Chromium with h.264 support built-in if you live in the US or any country where software patents are allowed.
Wouldn’t the same be true of ffmpeg and VLC, and aren’t both available from Apt on a fresh install? Making software available that is technically illegal is nothing new at all to Linux distributors. (Heh, Patrick Volkerding’s never even cared at all, so far as I can tell.)
I don’t use Ubuntu. I use the real thing instead: Debian and iceweasel.
The fact that Ubuntu is based on Debian does not make in less “real”. Same as humands are not less real than apes.
Edited 2010-01-27 16:02 UTC
http://www.ubuntu.com/community/ubuntustory/debian
Ubuntu is not exactly a fork from debian. Ubuntu IS debian. And I’m not saying that in any negative way. They make very nice wallpapers and the icons are pretty. It’s better that way. They would be very wrong to fork Debian indeed. I like Ubuntu actually, I think they do really interesting stuff, like the shipit program. I just don’t use it, I use Debian instead.
Edited 2010-01-27 16:22 UTC
It was my understanding that Ubuntu and Debian did not share repositories, and used a slightly different and incompatible .deb format (I learned that the hard way when I actually tried to install a .deb for Debian on an Ubuntu machine, stupidly, and broke apt). At that point, I think we can say that Ubuntu is a fork of Debian, by any reasonable definition of the term.
Ubuntu and Debian are binary-incompatible, so it is a bad idea to mix Ubuntu and Debian repositories in your /etc/apt/sources.list . But Ubuntu cannot be considered a fork. Ubuntu still compiles most of its non-basic software from Debian unstable source packages, and Ubuntu’s basic software management is still very much based on Debian.
Despite binary-incompatibility, it is often safe to install some individual Debian package on Ubuntu, especially such simple deb packages like fonts, for example. However, there have been incompatibilities between Debian and Ubuntu in the default versions of some basic stuff (Python etc.), and nowadays the two use some different basic tools (init system etc.), so installing software that depends on different (versions of) basic things is dangerous. Just like it can be difficult to install a package meant for Ubuntu 9.10 on Ubuntu 8.04, for example.
Maybe it’s just me, but I find the words “real thing” and “Iceweasel” in the same sentence immensely funny.
i’ll manually switch to google on the first run
Have you even tried Yahoo recently? Its search results are on par with Google these days. Since I found out about Forestle http://www.forestle.org , I use it exclusively. It uses Yahoo as back-end and I can’t complain.
A brilliant move by Ubuntu, especially the timing. At any other time, there would be dozens of knee-jerk, blindly anti-commerce posts from Freetards who can’t stand to see anyone else’s success.
But Ubuntu can get away with it at the moment, thanks to Google becoming the “new Microsoft” in the minds of many basement-dwellers. Apparently because Google had the gall to make money using Linux, without turning themselves into a non-profit that devotes all of their resources to pushing the FSF agenda. And now they must be punished!
I hear Microsoft evangelists had sex with their dads when they were kids! Is this true?
You realize Canonical is a for-profit organization just like Google, right? Kinda throws your argument out of the window, doesn’t it?
Silly rabbit, you misunderstand the Freetard mentality. Canonical is a-okay only because they haven’t committed the unforgivable sin of being financially-successful.
It would be first news to me then that RedHat is not “OK”.
Google being suddenly hated because they make profit out of Linux is a straw man.
Who the hell Are you talking about? Everyone I’ve encountered who claims the beliefs of the FSF or the OSI applaud companies/individuals that make money from open source.
Edited 2010-01-28 17:49 UTC
Ever heard of the Summer of Code ?
If it’s not helping open source projects I don’t know what it is …
I already see many people criticizing that deal. It’s not different from what google is doing, though. Keep in mind google is also paying to be the default search engine in Firefox and Opera and recently there were news about microsoft doing a similar deal with apple.
Which brings me to the next point. Is Canonical even allowed to change the default search engine in Firefox?
And seriously who except the 2 companys cares if the default is google or yahoo? It’s still a matter of taste/choice.
that will do. I don’t get it, you sleep with Google to make a baby (Chrome OS), then jump in bed with Yahoo? It’s all good till someone’s feelings get hurt, then the stuff hits the fan. Is this really the way to raise revenues, I mean why not take Microsoft’s “interoperability deal”, with Novel? Their revenue went threw the roof! They, and SUSE, are swimming in fans. Even if it is “easily changed with a click or two”, the default is what it is, will someone new figure it out. It’s all based on appearance’s , I know, but nobody cared what the reality was when the Microsoft deal went down.
Sigh, which comes out first, Chrome Os, or Lucid?
Edited 2010-01-27 15:57 UTC
Whoopsie, just received a reply from Rick Spencer, and I was dead wrong, as usual. Seems it’s just the drop down box, been so long since I used Firefox :[
When you’re wrong , promptly admit it. My bad. There’s nothing to what I said about Google being miffed either, pure speculation on my part. Which is why he is where he is in life, and I’m living in my mom’s basement, unemployed, drinking coffee, smoking cigarette’s and watching Captain Kangaroo reruns….
I can’t believe that nobody gets it that it’s not related to google chrome (the web browser) at all.
What they’re trying to explain is that the start page for the search in Firefox in Ubuntu 10.04 will match the settings chosen by you in the search box from the top right.
We are perfectly aware of that.
The reason we are mentioning Google Chrome is because that browser isn’t affected by the change in default search provider, and as such we don’t give a damn about the change.
Ha, nor Epiphany and many others.
Nor would it make sense to do it. It’s just for the default browser dooh
.
I couldn’t care less. It’s easy to change, so no harm done. Besides that I’m using Google Chrome on Linux as well.
Google Chrome on Windows Server 2008, and Google Chrome on Ubuntu 9.10.
“Do you ubuntooo?”
I doubt even Yahoo! care because they are now the default search engine on one distribution of a desktop OS with 1% market share. Also, if you are technically inclined enough to install Ubuntu I think you can handle changing a basic browser setting.
Well, 5% share according to Microsoft. But you know what a bunch of liars THEY are!
Does anyone even use Yahoo search these days? I just tried it again for laughs and it’s more ad-ridden than Google and less accurate for most things. Yahoo was my search engine of choice… back in 1997 or so. First thing I’ll be doing, you can bet, is switch my search engine away from yahoo back to Google. Hell, even Bing is better than Yahoo.
I agree, I try every new search engine when I see it, and revisit old ones when they pop up, and they always end up frustrating me back to google with ridiculously inaccurate results. Although, google’s targeted by search ads do crack me up, I was searching for MSDS on Manganese Dioxide for someone at work, and it said on the sponsered ad…
“Get Manganese Dioxide cheaper at Walmart…
Save money, live better, walmart!”
Yahoo is powered by Bing
Exactly how much revenue could come from this? I just don’t see it being more than a few dollars/month.
Thats what I was wondering too. From my understanding it would only share in revenue actually generated through (my guess) ads clicked on in search results and various things like that. So considering that most people will probably simply change back to google, and/or use adblocking add-ons, or not use Firefox at all, I wonder why either party actually bothered. And of course we know we’ll never actually be given even a glimpse of whether either makes any money or marketshare on this.
http://www.microsofttranslator.com/BV.aspx?ref=Internal&a=http%…
after all that mozilla has done for the web development and free standards , upon requiring two mouse clicks you just remove it and run into chrome and its x”closed” video codec
nice … really nice …
Yahoo is powered by Microsoft Bing
not going to use it.
Why?
Bing isn’t bad. And there is no idealistic reason not to use Bing. I mean, this is a market where Microsoft has had it’s ass kicked, and it’s not like you’re feeding into the monopoly.
Why?
Bing isn’t bad.
I, personally, get much more accurate results with Google than with Bing, and as the whole point of them is to return results for your queries it’s a pretty big issue. That’s the primary reason I use Google. Secondary reasons are that I’m used to Google, and I try to avoid Microsoft when there are reasonable alternatives, though that’s not such a big issue.
Bing doesn’t give me anything new and it isn’t better than Google so why switch ?
Edited 2010-01-27 18:25 UTC
Better privacy policy, especially if used through Yahoo (MS is bound to Yahoo’s privacy policy). Using Yahoo through Forestle http://www.forestle.org/ even saves the rain forest. Can’t get this with Google.
but nothing new
Microsoft is Microsoft. Using/supporting Bing still helps to fuel them as a company. If Bing was in no way a Microsoft product and a completely separate company, then maybe what you said would be partially true.
Edited 2010-01-27 21:30 UTC
I think the key thing to notice here is that Ubuntu is taking money to make a decision about the UI.
This is significant because previously all such decisions were about what was best for the user. Answer this, why didn’t they change to Yahoo before?? Because everyone knows full well that google is a better search engine and what 99.9% of Ubuntu users prefer.
This isn’t about being a freedom Nazi (which I actually am). It is about realizing that Ubuntu previously had a business model that entirely depended on user satisfaction and consequently there was no conflict of interest. Not anymore.
no , the key thing here is that although they change the default for “comercial reasons” , they do not hinder in any way your freedom to use whatever you want.
ubuntu is not obligated to sponsor google nor redhat
kde is not obligated to sponsor gnome
vim is not obligated to sponsor to emacs
if they made the google search slower or worse in any way compared to “default google search” , than that would be a problem for freedom.
freedom has nothing to do with “not making money” or “not market for your own things for money”.
it has to do with hindering your “personal choice”. and ubuntu has done nothing of that.
although i am defending ubuntu i, actually , am a gentoo and kde guy , so , ubuntu to me is the “worse” distro that can be
Ubuntu changes its default search provider to make some money – yeah, where’s the problem?
Canonical is a company that develops Ubuntu – it has a workforce they need paying etc this requires money.
I fail to see the problem we’re geeks it will take 10 seconds to change the provider back to Google or a few more to install Chrome.
Further more if I can help Canonical by using Yahoo to click a few adds when I want to buy something I may well do.
It’s hardly good supporting a company such as Yahoo, who have very little or no FOSS contribution.
I think Canonical should think about FOSS and pick more wisely, rather than think about the money no matter who it is.
I see Canonical getting pain for this, just like Novell siding with Microsoft.
Yahoo are big users of FreeBSD and contribute code and I believe cash back to the project …. yahoo do help FOSS software that they use.
It is easy. They are being paid off. Follow the money, follow the money, it leads to all your answers! It doesn’t matter what Ubuntu does though, The community will never be bought off.
What community are you talking about?
The developers paid to work on linux by commercial companies?
http://www.osnews.com/story/22786/75_of_Linux_Code_Written_by_Paid_…
The users, using Google and/or Ubuntu?
These users has already been enslaved by the imperialistic multinational capital a long time ago.
You must either be talking about some “community” that I have never heard about or you are naive to the point of being ridiculous.
So what is it? please enlighten me….
Yahoo is supporting Canonical and therefore FOSS here by paying money to them. Sure, they get something back. But isn’t it in the spirit of the GPL to get something back?
On balance, this decision will do something to help oppose the near monopoly that google has on search.
Oxymoron, anyone? Or am I just waaaaay behind in the never-ending linguistic evolution?
As long as they don’t override user preferences, defaulting to Yahoo or even Bing doesn’t particularly bother me…
Just wait for the Ubuntu spinoff distro that does nothing more than change the default search engine back, hahah.
Exactly right man! Ubuntu may be bought off but they won’t pay me off.
Sad, this is a obvious sign, that it is a time to look for another distribution.
Ubuntu is a branch off Debian Unstable. It’s a cutting edge distro. Has always been, even though to a lesser degree than Fedora.
That’s not bad. Lots of people like that concept, but being cutting edge results in slightly lesser quality than some other distros as people who were in the past plagued with Intel GPU and PulseAudio problems can tell you.
At least they decided not to go with Bing for God’s sake!
yahoo is bing
No, it’s not. Yahoo doesn’t even use Bing, yet. Or have you seen a “powered by Bing” banner anywhere?
All default homepages in Linux browsers should be links to distribution support pages: message boards, forums, documentation, release document, and How-Tos.
Having the Ubuntu distro earn money is great for long-term sustainability of the project. I’m glad they decided to go this way (allowing user to switch from the default) instead of doing something more destructive like ads or forcing the search box to be yahoo all the time.
MS -IE, the widest spread combo, comes with Bing as the default – but what does the world and dog use? Google. The hurdle for change here is so loooow, it is not worth any paper or thought to be wasted on. Ups! I plead guilty !
Exactly. It doesn’t mean anything except for those who yell and scream the M-dollar-sign slogan around the internet.
Last time I checked, Bing’s market share is on the rise.
Anyone can use any search engine they like. Heck, I use several. Who cares what the default is? Anyone reading this site knows enough to change to their favorite.
Google has been the leader in search engine business for some time now. It has had usability, good features and the largest databases. However, let’s not completely dismiss the alternatives. The biggest may not always be the best, for your particular information need. It might sometimes be a good idea to give other search providers a chance too.
There is a lot that can still be improved in the field of Internet search. What is considered top quality now may still change many times in the future. Nowadays semantic search is a hot research topic in search engine development, and actually some much smaller new semantic search engines may still be more advanced in that sense than the old big ones: http://www.searchenginejournal.com/semantic-search-engines/9832/
Kubuntu is great!
Anyone know whether you can use chrome with yahoo in a fashion that provides profit for canonical? I’m ready to change search engine if it helps ubuntu, but I’d like to stick with chrome.
It’s simply a matter of preference.
It work, we are mostly a Microsoft shop, but for web it’s Firefox and Google…..
At home, its Ubuntu with both Firefox and Chrome with Google and Yahoo search engines
I’m not too terribly bothered by Canonical doing this change enough to start throwing furniture, as long as I’m not restricted on making a choice as who to use as a search engine. (I have limited choices in the workplace, that is not up to me but at home I do have those wonderful choices.)
Got to find my furniture polish…..