Yahoo Pays Canonical, Now They're The Ubuntu Default

[val-gaav]

They do realize that yahoo will be powered by Bing (MS) eventually? LAME.

How is the current Mono (MS) powered ubuntu different from that? Why isn't Mono (Ms) lame in your opinion then ?

I mean this is a bit alike don't you think ? Yeah there are anti-mono people running all around, but since ubuntu took a pro mono stance so why are so many now surprised on the yahoo/bing thing ?

It would be news if debian or fedora switched to bing, since both are anti-mono/ms but ubuntu ? No surprise for me ...

[portets43]

ubuntu is the beginners distro, right?
it's full of new users that just came from windows, right?
microsoft made a deal to make yahoo bing powered, right?

wouldn't it be crazy if say, microsoft wasn't just trying to shut down google.

what if microsoft made a separate side deal with yahoo to give an offer to canonical? the linux place that would be easiest for microsoft to gain back old users!

[Panix]

Who cares... this is one of the most ridiculous discussions I've come across on here. They both cater to Windows, both Yahoo and Google.

Google is opensource friendly? Bah. Look at the Google Earth page. Yeah, real friendly installation page for installing in Linux. Yeah, except I come across feedback of people saying it took them 1 minute to install GE on Windows and only an hour on a Linux machine. Yeah, Google is really friendly to opensource and Linux. Yeah. So, who gives a crap. Dull topic.

[movieman]

Google is opensource friendly?

Don't Google own Youtube? Which is apparently switching to H.264 video, which Chrome can display but Firefox can't, due to patent restrictions?

And I have to admit, I find Google search less and less useful the 'smarter' it tries to be. Type in a relatively uncommon IT acronym and I typically have to hunt through about ten million spurious responses of words similar to that acronynm until I find something useful, because it just knows that I don't really want to search for the word I actually entered.

[Jimmy]

Who cares... this is one of the most ridiculous discussions I've come across on here. They both cater to Windows, both Yahoo and Google.

Google is opensource friendly? Bah. Look at the Google Earth page. Yeah, real friendly installation page for installing in Linux. Yeah, except I come across feedback of people saying it took them 1 minute to install GE on Windows and only an hour on a Linux machine. Yeah, Google is really friendly to opensource and Linux. Yeah. So, who gives a crap. Dull topic.

Perhaps a better way to say it would be "Google is friendlier to open source than X." When people say "open source friendly" they often mean "friendlier than other prominent software vendors." Given that the most prominent vendor around is Microsoft, it's easy to be friendlier than X.

So while Google could be even more friendly to Open source they certainly aren't hostile to it and in many examples they are downright helpful to open source.

In short "open source friendly" by popular use doesn't mean that every singling thing they do is for the betterment of open source everywhere. It means they don't call it a cancer that infringes on unspecified patents and engage in proxy wars aimed at defeating open source projects.

FWIW, I just installed Google Earth on Linux in under a minute. Also, if "open source friendly" meant "user friendly" than many Linux projects would in fact be hostile to open source even though they are themselves open source. So, your one example of how Google is so evil sounds more like FUD to me than anything else.

[Jimmy]

How is the current Mono (MS) powered ubuntu different from that? Why isn't Mono (Ms) lame in your opinion then ?

I mean this is a bit alike don't you think ? Yeah there are anti-mono people running all around, but since ubuntu took a pro mono stance so why are so many now surprised on the yahoo/bing thing ?

It would be news if debian or fedora switched to bing, since both are anti-mono/ms but ubuntu ? No surprise for me ...

I meant to reply to this earlier, but here goes.

Mono is not a Microsoft project. If someone has a problem with Mono than they should also have a problem with Linux FAT/NTFS support, Samba, Wine, and on and on. Is making things compatible really that evil? Really? To those who think so: Bring me all your thumb drives and show me they all use something other than a Microsoft file system or you're a hypocrite.

I just don't understand why Mono gets more hate than other projects which, in principle, are just as "evil" at being compatible with Microsoft technologies. Yet the same people who spread the hate often do it from boxes that have Samba, FAT/NTFS support, Wine, proprietary video drivers, Windows fonts, and even Windows binary codecs. Open Office can read and write MS Office formats. Where's the line?

I don't understand how someone can take the extreme hate position on Mono for no other reason that it implements a Microsoft technology and turn around and use the other stuff.

[curaga]

Type in a relatively uncommon IT acronym and I typically have to hunt through about ten million spurious responses of words similar to that acronynm until I find something useful, because it just knows that I don't really want to search for the word I actually entered.

Put it in quotes nowadays.

[Panix]

FWIW, I just installed Google Earth on Linux in under a minute. Also, if "open source friendly" meant "user friendly" than many Linux projects would in fact be hostile to open source even though they are themselves open source. So, your one example of how Google is so evil sounds more like FUD to me than anything else.

Your B.S. is quite amusing. I'll know to ignore your posts from now on.

[Jimmy]

Your B.S. is quite amusing. I'll know to ignore your posts from now on.

Most people who don't have a sound counter do that. Go ahead and stick your fingers in your ears and yell nah nah nah.

[val-gaav]

I meant to reply to this earlier, but here goes.

Mono is not a Microsoft project. If someone has a problem with Mono than they should also have a problem with Linux FAT/NTFS support, Samba, Wine, and on and on. Is making things compatible really that evil? Really? To those who think so: Bring me all your thumb drives and show me they all use something other than a Microsoft file system or you're a hypocrite.

You missed my point. Just as mono is not a MS project Yahoo is also not owned by Microsoft (at least yet :P ) They are partners with MS. Guess what Novel the main player behind Mono is also in partnership with MS...

IMHO it's very alike and as I said there are distros that provide Mono by default and those that do not. Ubuntu provides mono by default and now will use yahoo (bing powered or whatever). As I said that shouldn't be a surprise.