Re: Replacing Firefox with Google Chrome
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 4:04 PM, Jim Campbell jwcampb...@gmail.com wrote: Hi All, Thanks for your input, and for bringing some of these issues to our attention. I'd like to try and summarize some of the issues and concerns that people have. On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 5:31 AM, Marko Oreskovic markore...@gmail.comwrote: Vincent wrote: Also, Chrome extensions aren't yet as powerful, as the Adblock lookalikes for Chrome can't actually block ads from being loaded, just prevent them from being displayed. This exposes you to a lot more scrutiny from advertising companies. Also +1 against Chrome as default anywhere. I use Noscript extension for Firefox and Seamonkey and I mostly could not survive without them with the degree of use I have. (Javascript and flash abuse all over internet is very extensive) Also there is Chromium instead of that Chrome that is Google-controlled. I do not trust Chrome at all. There are many things that Chrome is doing that ordinary browser should not do, regarding user privacy, and is used and could be used to track user on internet: http://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron_chrome_vs_iron.php http://maketecheasier.com/iron-browser-a-secure-alternative-to-google-chrome/2009/07/08 I mentioned Google Chrome in the subject of my message, but at this point we would only be considering Chromium. Relating to the srware.net article Marcos linked to above, I think this would have the following implications. Please consider these as comments on the issue, not advocacy of one browser over the other. - Client ID - I don't think this would be relevant, as we would be using an Ubuntu package. I'd be glad to know if my thoughts here are incorrect. - Time Stamp - Same as above. - Suggest - May be an issue, although I think this behavior also occurs with the Firefox searchbar. In a way, the address bar on Chromium is a big searchbar, though. - Alternate error pages - I'm not familiar with this issue. The site says, Depending on configuration . . . Can anyone explain if there is a setting for this? - Error reporting - This is user-configurable, but I will check the default setting for Chromium. - RLZ-tracking - Not sure if this would apply to Chromium, as it is an Ubuntu package, not direct from Google. I'd be glad to know if this does apply to an Ubuntu Chromium package, though. - Google Updater - Not applicable to an Ubuntu Chromium package - URL-Tracker - It's unclear to me what the problem is here (i.e., I can't understand how they've phrased the issue). It sounds like the google home page is opening? But it is dependent on the configuration? Can anyone else explain this? I'll make a few other notes. 1) I checked, and Ubuntu's deal with Yahoo will not impact Chromium (or any other browsers) in X/K/Ubuntu. All other browsers will stay with their default searchbar configurations (as appropriate). Of course, Chromium would default to a Google search, similar to most browsers. 2) With regards to translations, I checked the Chromium's packager, and he said that they would have to bend the Chromium package to get it translatable via Launchpad. Thus, this remains an outstanding issue at this time, and there's no promise that this would be resolved in time for Lucid. 3) I agree about the less powerful adblock extensions, but how many people use these? Is having them available going to impact the core set of Xubuntu users? I am not saying that it absolutely will not impact the core set of Xubuntu users, I am just asking the question. How many Xubuntu users rely on adblock? If there is not a good adblock extension now, will a better adblock extension be possible down the road, or does Chromium's setup prevent something like this from working well? 4) Xubuntu does try to emphasize lightness where possible, and we strive to make Xubuntu usable on systems with less memory. From the Xubuntu strategy document, Xubuntu does not exclusively target users with low, modest, or high powered machines but instead targets the entire spectrum with a strong focus on enabling lower end machines. Xubuntu's extra responsiveness and speed, among other positive traits, can be appreciated by all users regardless of their hardware. Chromium would have a clear advantage here, even compared to FF 3.6. 5) The issue of patented codecs brought up by Andrew Blomen is an interesting one. I agree that we should encourage use of Free codecs where possible. What do people think? Given all of this, I'm not so sure that Chromium is the best fit for Xubuntu, at least for now. The translation issue is important to our users, and the codec issue is important to me. The privacy issue seems important to some, but I tend to think that most anything we do on the internet can be tracked somehow (unless we use the extreme step of using Tor or something). The smaller memory footprint provided by Chromium would be a nice to have
Re: Replacing Firefox with Google Chrome
On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 03:27:40PM +0100, Vincent wrote: You forgot the UI consistency issue, which I personally consider pretty important. Anyway, for as far as we can't already say this has been concluded, here's another vote for not including it in the LTS. I also saw Lionel uploaded Chromium to the Lucid archives so at least people can try it without having to enable a PPA :) Just to be accurate: chromium-browser has been uploaded in lucid by someone from the Ubuntu Mozilla Team (Fabien Tassin), not by me. ;) -- Lionel Le Folgoc - https://launchpad.net/~mrpouit E61E 116D 4BA1 3936 0A33 F61D 65D9 A66E 10E2 969A signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- xubuntu-devel mailing list xubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/xubuntu-devel
Re: Replacing Firefox with Google Chrome
Hi All, Thanks for your input, and for bringing some of these issues to our attention. I'd like to try and summarize some of the issues and concerns that people have. On Wed, Jan 27, 2010 at 5:31 AM, Marko Oreskovic markore...@gmail.comwrote: Vincent wrote: Also, Chrome extensions aren't yet as powerful, as the Adblock lookalikes for Chrome can't actually block ads from being loaded, just prevent them from being displayed. This exposes you to a lot more scrutiny from advertising companies. Also +1 against Chrome as default anywhere. I use Noscript extension for Firefox and Seamonkey and I mostly could not survive without them with the degree of use I have. (Javascript and flash abuse all over internet is very extensive) Also there is Chromium instead of that Chrome that is Google-controlled. I do not trust Chrome at all. There are many things that Chrome is doing that ordinary browser should not do, regarding user privacy, and is used and could be used to track user on internet: http://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron_chrome_vs_iron.php http://maketecheasier.com/iron-browser-a-secure-alternative-to-google-chrome/2009/07/08 I mentioned Google Chrome in the subject of my message, but at this point we would only be considering Chromium. Relating to the srware.net article Marcos linked to above, I think this would have the following implications. Please consider these as comments on the issue, not advocacy of one browser over the other. - Client ID - I don't think this would be relevant, as we would be using an Ubuntu package. I'd be glad to know if my thoughts here are incorrect. - Time Stamp - Same as above. - Suggest - May be an issue, although I think this behavior also occurs with the Firefox searchbar. In a way, the address bar on Chromium is a big searchbar, though. - Alternate error pages - I'm not familiar with this issue. The site says, Depending on configuration . . . Can anyone explain if there is a setting for this? - Error reporting - This is user-configurable, but I will check the default setting for Chromium. - RLZ-tracking - Not sure if this would apply to Chromium, as it is an Ubuntu package, not direct from Google. I'd be glad to know if this does apply to an Ubuntu Chromium package, though. - Google Updater - Not applicable to an Ubuntu Chromium package - URL-Tracker - It's unclear to me what the problem is here (i.e., I can't understand how they've phrased the issue). It sounds like the google home page is opening? But it is dependent on the configuration? Can anyone else explain this? I'll make a few other notes. 1) I checked, and Ubuntu's deal with Yahoo will not impact Chromium (or any other browsers) in X/K/Ubuntu. All other browsers will stay with their default searchbar configurations (as appropriate). Of course, Chromium would default to a Google search, similar to most browsers. 2) With regards to translations, I checked the Chromium's packager, and he said that they would have to bend the Chromium package to get it translatable via Launchpad. Thus, this remains an outstanding issue at this time, and there's no promise that this would be resolved in time for Lucid. 3) I agree about the less powerful adblock extensions, but how many people use these? Is having them available going to impact the core set of Xubuntu users? I am not saying that it absolutely will not impact the core set of Xubuntu users, I am just asking the question. How many Xubuntu users rely on adblock? If there is not a good adblock extension now, will a better adblock extension be possible down the road, or does Chromium's setup prevent something like this from working well? 4) Xubuntu does try to emphasize lightness where possible, and we strive to make Xubuntu usable on systems with less memory. From the Xubuntu strategy document, Xubuntu does not exclusively target users with low, modest, or high powered machines but instead targets the entire spectrum with a strong focus on enabling lower end machines. Xubuntu's extra responsiveness and speed, among other positive traits, can be appreciated by all users regardless of their hardware. Chromium would have a clear advantage here, even compared to FF 3.6. 5) The issue of patented codecs brought up by Andrew Blomen is an interesting one. I agree that we should encourage use of Free codecs where possible. What do people think? Given all of this, I'm not so sure that Chromium is the best fit for Xubuntu, at least for now. The translation issue is important to our users, and the codec issue is important to me. The privacy issue seems important to some, but I tend to think that most anything we do on the internet can be tracked somehow (unless we use the extreme step of using Tor or something). The smaller memory footprint provided by Chromium would be a nice to have feature, but we've survived using Firefox for a good while - using it for a LTS would probably be the best thing to do. Jim --
Re: Replacing Firefox with Google Chrome
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 09:04:23 -0600 Jim Campbell jwcampb...@gmail.com wrote: Hi All, Thanks for your input, and for bringing some of these issues to our attention. I'd like to try and summarize some of the issues and concerns that people have. What do people think? Given all of this, I'm not so sure that Chromium is the best fit for Xubuntu, at least for now. The translation issue is important to our users, and the codec issue is important to me. The privacy issue seems important to some, but I tend to think that most anything we do on the internet can be tracked somehow (unless we use the extreme step of using Tor or something). The smaller memory footprint provided by Chromium would be a nice to have feature, but we've survived using Firefox for a good while - using it for a LTS would probably be the best thing to do. Jim Thanks for the detailed comparison. At least it is an option. I would have to vote for Firefox for the LTS, give Chromium a chance to stabilize. Also, perhaps looking at Midori vs Chromium for Lucid+1 again. Midori is now maintained by the Xfce developers, isn't it? Chromium bothers me, for for reasons I really can't put a finger on right now. Perhaps it is what I see/hear about google and privacy. Any user can switch the default search easy enough in Firefox. Just one man's opinion... -- Charlie Kravetz Linux Registered User Number 425914 [http://counter.li.org/] Never let anyone steal your DREAM. [http://keepingdreams.com] -- xubuntu-devel mailing list xubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/xubuntu-devel
Re: Replacing Firefox with Google Chrome
Charlie Kravetz wrote: On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 09:04:23 -0600 Jim Campbell jwcampb...@gmail.com wrote: Hi All, Thanks for your input, and for bringing some of these issues to our attention. I'd like to try and summarize some of the issues and concerns that people have. What do people think? Given all of this, I'm not so sure that Chromium is the best fit for Xubuntu, at least for now. The translation issue is important to our users, and the codec issue is important to me. The privacy issue seems important to some, but I tend to think that most anything we do on the internet can be tracked somehow (unless we use the extreme step of using Tor or something). The smaller memory footprint provided by Chromium would be a nice to have feature, but we've survived using Firefox for a good while - using it for a LTS would probably be the best thing to do. Jim Thanks for the detailed comparison. At least it is an option. I would have to vote for Firefox for the LTS, Exactly my thoughts. This was my knee jerk reaction, but I've become convinced it's the right way after following this discussion. give Chromium a chance to stabilize. Also, perhaps looking at Midori vs Chromium for Lucid+1 again. Midori is now maintained by the Xfce developers, isn't it? Yes, Midori is maintained by the Xfce team. Again, I would *love* to see Midori on Xubuntu, once its problems are solved. Chromium bothers me, for for reasons I really can't put a finger on right now. Perhaps it is what I see/hear about google and privacy. Any user can switch the default search easy enough in Firefox. Just one man's opinion... +1 -- Pasi Lallinaho Xubuntu Marketing Lead Web-designer, graphic artist IRC: knome @ freenode -- xubuntu-devel mailing list xubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/xubuntu-devel
Re: Replacing Firefox with Google Chrome
Jim, I'll mainly comment on 3) Statistics from the Firefox add-ons site (ordered by popularity) .. #1 *Adblock Plus: 926,549 weekly downloads* #2 Coral IE Tab: 105,047 weekly downloads #3 Download Flash and Video: 60,397 weekly downloads ie. Adblock Plus is very popular (almost 1 million downloads a week) and many times more popular than any other FF add-on. I don't know whether it is used by the core set of Xubuntu users - but, given it's general popularity, it might. Adblock Plus improves responsiveness and speed very significantly on some sites. I feel that Chrome is still an immature product. In a year or 2, it will be more mature and easier to compare against its competition. I think it is good to have it in the Ubuntu repositories, though, so people can try out the Linux version easily and monitor its progress. I will be. Just one opinion. David On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 2:04 AM, Jim Campbell jwcampb...@gmail.com wrote: 3) I agree about the less powerful adblock extensions, but how many people use these? Is having them available going to impact the core set of Xubuntu users? I am not saying that it absolutely will not impact the core set of Xubuntu users, I am just asking the question. How many Xubuntu users rely on adblock? If there is not a good adblock extension now, will a better adblock extension be possible down the road, or does Chromium's setup prevent something like this from working well? -- xubuntu-devel mailing list xubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/xubuntu-devel
Re: Replacing Firefox with Google Chrome
On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 5:11 PM, David Collins david.8.coll...@gmail.comwrote: Jim, I'll mainly comment on 3) Statistics from the Firefox add-ons site (ordered by popularity) .. #1 *Adblock Plus: 926,549 weekly downloads* #2 Coral IE Tab: 105,047 weekly downloads #3 Download Flash and Video: 60,397 weekly downloads ie. Adblock Plus is very popular (almost 1 million downloads a week) and many times more popular than any other FF add-on. I don't know whether it is used by the core set of Xubuntu users - but, given it's general popularity, it might. Adblock Plus improves responsiveness and speed very significantly on some sites. I feel that Chrome is still an immature product. In a year or 2, it will be more mature and easier to compare against its competition. I think it is good to have it in the Ubuntu repositories, though, so people can try out the Linux version easily and monitor its progress. I will be. Just one opinion. Woo! Constructive opinions and feedback! Thanks, everyone. This is going to be our best release ever. Jim -- xubuntu-devel mailing list xubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/xubuntu-devel
Re: Replacing Firefox with Google Chrome
On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 20:17:01 +0200 Pasi Lallinaho o...@knome.fi wrote: Charlie Kravetz wrote: On Thu, 28 Jan 2010 09:04:23 -0600 Jim Campbell jwcampb...@gmail.com wrote: Hi All, Thanks for your input, and for bringing some of these issues to our attention. I'd like to try and summarize some of the issues and concerns that people have. What do people think? Given all of this, I'm not so sure that Chromium is the best fit for Xubuntu, at least for now. The translation issue is important to our users, and the codec issue is important to me. The privacy issue seems important to some, but I tend to think that most anything we do on the internet can be tracked somehow (unless we use the extreme step of using Tor or something). The smaller memory footprint provided by Chromium would be a nice to have feature, but we've survived using Firefox for a good while - using it for a LTS would probably be the best thing to do. Jim Thanks for the detailed comparison. At least it is an option. I would have to vote for Firefox for the LTS, Exactly my thoughts. This was my knee jerk reaction, but I've become convinced it's the right way after following this discussion. give Chromium a chance to stabilize. Also, perhaps looking at Midori vs Chromium for Lucid+1 again. Midori is now maintained by the Xfce developers, isn't it? Yes, Midori is maintained by the Xfce team. Again, I would *love* to see Midori on Xubuntu, once its problems are solved. Chromium bothers me, for for reasons I really can't put a finger on right now. Perhaps it is what I see/hear about google and privacy. Any user can switch the default search easy enough in Firefox. Just one man's opinion... +1 +1 -- xubuntu-devel mailing list xubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/xubuntu-devel
Re: Replacing Firefox with Google Chrome
Vincent wrote: Also, Chrome extensions aren't yet as powerful, as the Adblock lookalikes for Chrome can't actually block ads from being loaded, just prevent them from being displayed. This exposes you to a lot more scrutiny from advertising companies. Also +1 against Chrome as default anywhere. I use Noscript extension for Firefox and Seamonkey and I mostly could not survive without them with the degree of use I have. (Javascript and flash abuse all over internet is very extensive) Also there is Chromium instead of that Chrome that is Google-controlled. I do not trust Chrome at all. There are many things that Chrome is doing that ordinary browser should not do, regarding user privacy, and is used and could be used to track user on internet: http://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron_chrome_vs_iron.php http://maketecheasier.com/iron-browser-a-secure-alternative-to-google-chrome/2009/07/08 So there is a project that use chromium project and eliminates privacy issues that chrome has. It called Iron. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SRWare_Iron http://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron.php Also binary license of Google Chrome under which it is licensed, put user in direct conditioning to Google company etc.. Firefox is like a standard free browser for many years now. If someone wants to use Google-licensed Chrome binary he can always add it to he`s system the same way he can add Opera or Seamonkey. Lets not get Ubuntu derivates be turned into Google OS. There is a Google OS if someone loves Google so much and does not value its privacy. -- xubuntu-devel mailing list xubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/xubuntu-devel
Re: Replacing Firefox with Google Chrome
Marcos wrote: Hi! I vote for Chromium, not Chrome. But Chromium and Chrome has a important problem: I can't localize to my language. Only the languages that they choose, can enter in Chromium/Chrome. You can read more here: http://acurti.es/8la Marked as Won't fix :( I think is contrary to the free software. Chromium/Chrome isn't integrated with the system, with special menus, they not use the Guide of Usability :( It is quite unacceptable to have such browser as default whet is even can not be localized and translated to language users are using. I would not consider Chrom* anything until that thing with not allowing translation is solved in a desirable fashion. -- xubuntu-devel mailing list xubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/xubuntu-devel
Re: Replacing Firefox with Google Chrome
I think it would be wise to see how the mobile team will address the video playback issue [0] in Chromium before considering a move. [0] http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_itempx=NzkxNQ -- xubuntu-devel mailing list xubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/xubuntu-devel
Re: Replacing Firefox with Google Chrome
I use Firefox but have been watching Chrome carefully with an eye to switching, but it seems that Google still has a bit of work to do before it matches Firefox's extensions. This is an interesting article because it gets into the details of Chrome extensions enough to pick out some of the shortfalls. http://download.cnet.com/8301-2007_4-10416103-12.html?tag=contentMain;contentBody eg. - Adblock Plus, the #1 extension for FF ... 'Despite the name, AdBlock+http://download.cnet.com/AdBlock-/3000-2378_4-10976589.htmlshould be avoided. It's not made by the same publishers who manage AdBlock Plus http://download.cnet.com/Adblock-Plus/3000-11745_4-10636539.html, the popular and effective ad-blocker for Firefox. This is actually a fairly serious problem with Chrome's extensions, where unknown entities are appropriating identical or similar names to well-known and trusted Firefox add-ons for what amount to nefarious purposes. So far, the ad-blocking extension that most users seem to be trusting in Chrome is AdBlockhttp://download.cnet.com/AdBlock-/3000-2378_4-10976589.html, but don't be surprised if it causes more problems than it solves until there's more consensus on these name-squatters' http://download.cnet.com/8301-2007_4-10416103-12.html?tag=contentMain;contentBodyXmarks for synching bookmarks is only Beta. -- xubuntu-devel mailing list xubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/xubuntu-devel
Re: Replacing Firefox with Google Chrome
Hi! You have more information here about my petitions for localizate to my language (asturian language): http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=28348 and here: https://answers.launchpad.net/chromium-browser/+question/90682 And do not seem very interested in the location of application (at least for now), except for widespread languages :( Best regards. On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Jim Campbell jwcampb...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 9:21 AM, Jim Campbell jwcampb...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Marcos, On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 2:18 AM, Marcos marcoscosta...@gmail.com wrote: Hi! I vote for Chromium, not Chrome. But Chromium and Chrome has a important problem: I can't localize to my language. Only the languages that they choose, can enter in Chromium/Chrome. You can read more here: http://acurti.es/8la Marked as Won't fix :( I think is contrary to the free software. Chromium/Chrome isn't integrated with the system, with special menus, they not use the Guide of Usability :( Best regards. I could deal with the UI issues, but the i10n and i18n issues do not make me happy. One of the key strengths of free and open source projects is the ability to translate the software into a person's native language. For the Chromium team to mark that bug as won't fix, doesn't seem right. If they wanted to mark it as wishlist, I could understand. I mean, if it takes a lot of effort to set up a translation infrastructure . . . maybe they don't have the time to get to that right now. If the software can't be localized, then I wouldn't see much point in including it in Xubuntu. If someone knows of a way around this on the Ubuntu side that I'm not aware of, please feel free to mention it. Otherwise, I would be willing to forgo any further discussion of using Chromium in Xubuntu for now. Jim To err on the side of caution, I am investigating further. :) -- xubuntu-devel mailing list xubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/xubuntu-devel -- xubuntu-devel mailing list xubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/xubuntu-devel
Re: Replacing Firefox with Google Chrome
On Wed, 2010-01-13 at 10:57 -0600, Jim Campbell wrote: Hi All, I wanted to suggest to the team that we switch from using Firefox to Google Chrome as the default web browser for the Lucid release. At UDS the Ubuntu Mobile team lead announced that they would be switching to Google Chrome as the primary browser for the Lucid release for the Ubuntu Netbook edition. Most all developers at UDS were using Chrome, and in informal tests Cody and I found it to use much less writeable memory than Firefox. For example, the other night, I started two new browser sessions - one with Firefox and one with Google's Chrome Beta (not Chromium), and opened up four tabs: * Xubuntu.org * Gmail * Opennebula.org * and search.yahoo.com All browser extensions were removed (not just disabled). Without doing any additional surfing, Firefox was using 55 mb of writeable memory*, while Chrome was using only 18 mb of writeable memory. I've been using Chrome as my default browser since UDS, and notice no performance issues. It also offers a wide range of browser extensions, so it would not represent any major regression in terms of features. Besides, any user who wanted to install Firefox could easily do so. With regards to the packaging, I'm sure we could tie-in with any final packages that the mobile team wound up using (I'm not sure whether they intend to use Chrome or Chromium). Chrome will certainly be receiving support throughout the LTS life cycle. I know that Charlie had said that switching browsers for an LTS wouldn't be a great idea, but given the points I've mentioned above, it seems one worth considering. What do you think? Jim * I checked this using the system resources app. As Cody noted to me, you need to make sure you're looking at writeable memory rather than the default memory usage that gets displayed. Jim out of curiosity what does epiphany use in comparison? -- Seek That Thy Might Know http://www.davmor2.co.uk signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- xubuntu-devel mailing list xubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/xubuntu-devel
Re: Replacing Firefox with Google Chrome
Dave Morley wrote: On Wed, 2010-01-13 at 10:57 -0600, Jim Campbell wrote: Hi All, I wanted to suggest to the team that we switch from using Firefox to Google Chrome as the default web browser for the Lucid release. At UDS the Ubuntu Mobile team lead announced that they would be switching to Google Chrome as the primary browser for the Lucid release for the Ubuntu Netbook edition. Most all developers at UDS were using Chrome, and in informal tests Cody and I found it to use much less writeable memory than Firefox. For example, the other night, I started two new browser sessions - one with Firefox and one with Google's Chrome Beta (not Chromium), and opened up four tabs: * Xubuntu.org * Gmail * Opennebula.org * and search.yahoo.com All browser extensions were removed (not just disabled). Without doing any additional surfing, Firefox was using 55 mb of writeable memory*, while Chrome was using only 18 mb of writeable memory. I've been using Chrome as my default browser since UDS, and notice no performance issues. It also offers a wide range of browser extensions, so it would not represent any major regression in terms of features. Besides, any user who wanted to install Firefox could easily do so. With regards to the packaging, I'm sure we could tie-in with any final packages that the mobile team wound up using (I'm not sure whether they intend to use Chrome or Chromium). Chrome will certainly be receiving support throughout the LTS life cycle. I know that Charlie had said that switching browsers for an LTS wouldn't be a great idea, but given the points I've mentioned above, it seems one worth considering. What do you think? Jim * I checked this using the system resources app. As Cody noted to me, you need to make sure you're looking at writeable memory rather than the default memory usage that gets displayed. Jim out of curiosity what does epiphany use in comparison? Or midori. -- Pasi Lallinaho Xubuntu Marketing Lead Web-designer, graphic artist IRC: knome @ freenode -- xubuntu-devel mailing list xubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/xubuntu-devel
Re: Replacing Firefox with Google Chrome
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 11:02 AM, Pasi Lallinaho o...@knome.fi wrote: Dave Morley wrote: Jim out of curiosity what does epiphany use in comparison? Or midori. We would have to look at those, but given the lack of extensions and keyboard shortcuts for Epiphany, and the newness of Midori (have you tried opening gmail in Midori? It reverts to the standard-html gmail interface, and requiring sites to interface with Midori as if they were interfacing with Safari shouldn't be something we should go with for an LTS). I don't mean that as a knock against Midori. I have the Midori PPA installed, and use it with some frequency. It's under really active development, and it is a great project, but I don't think it would be ready for use as the default browser in a release. Jim -- xubuntu-devel mailing list xubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/xubuntu-devel
Re: Replacing Firefox with Google Chrome
Jim Campbell wrote: On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 11:02 AM, Pasi Lallinaho o...@knome.fi mailto:o...@knome.fi wrote: Dave Morley wrote: Jim out of curiosity what does epiphany use in comparison? Or midori. We would have to look at those, but given the lack of extensions and keyboard shortcuts for Epiphany, and the newness of Midori (have you tried opening gmail in Midori? It reverts to the standard-html gmail interface, and requiring sites to interface with Midori as if they were interfacing with Safari shouldn't be something we should go with for an LTS). I don't mean that as a knock against Midori. I have the Midori PPA installed, and use it with some frequency. It's under really active development, and it is a great project, but I don't think it would be ready for use as the default browser in a release. Jim I agree. I can't even open Gmail in Midori. We would like to have know the memory usage differences just for curiosity, maybe for Lucid+1/2. I'm really interested in getting Midori in at some point. -- Pasi Lallinaho Xubuntu Marketing Lead Web-designer, graphic artist IRC: knome @ freenode -- xubuntu-devel mailing list xubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/xubuntu-devel
Re: Replacing Firefox with Google Chrome
On Wed, 2010-01-13 at 19:12 +0200, Pasi Lallinaho wrote: Jim Campbell wrote: On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 11:02 AM, Pasi Lallinaho o...@knome.fi wrote: Dave Morley wrote: Jim out of curiosity what does epiphany use in comparison? Or midori. We would have to look at those, but given the lack of extensions and keyboard shortcuts for Epiphany, and the newness of Midori (have you tried opening gmail in Midori? It reverts to the standard-html gmail interface, and requiring sites to interface with Midori as if they were interfacing with Safari shouldn't be something we should go with for an LTS). I don't mean that as a knock against Midori. I have the Midori PPA installed, and use it with some frequency. It's under really active development, and it is a great project, but I don't think it would be ready for use as the default browser in a release. Jim I agree. I can't even open Gmail in Midori. We would like to have know the memory usage differences just for curiosity, maybe for Lucid+1/2. I'm really interested in getting Midori in at some point. Jim a lot of the stuff that was broken I believe has now been fixed in epiphany. (I could be wrong) -- Seek That Thy Might Know http://www.davmor2.co.uk signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- xubuntu-devel mailing list xubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/xubuntu-devel
Re: Replacing Firefox with Google Chrome
HI Jim On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Jim Campbell jwcampb...@gmail.com wrote: I know that Charlie had said that switching browsers for an LTS wouldn't be a great idea, but given the points I've mentioned above, it seems one worth considering. What do you think? I also use Chrome/ium and performance-wise it's much better even on my fast machines. It doesn't seem to be in main or universe yet though, which I'm quite sure would be a prerequisite for getting it in Xubuntu. Did they perhaps also discuss a roadmap for its inclusion at UDS? -Jonathan -- xubuntu-devel mailing list xubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/xubuntu-devel
Re: Replacing Firefox with Google Chrome
On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 12:57 AM, Jim Campbell jwcampb...@gmail.com wrote: I wanted to suggest to the team that we switch from using Firefox to Google Chrome as the default web browser for the Lucid release. At UDS the Ubuntu Mobile team lead announced that they would be switching to Google Chrome as the primary browser for the Lucid release for the Ubuntu Netbook edition. Most all developers at UDS were using Chrome, and in informal tests Cody and I found it to use much less writeable memory than Firefox. snip With regards to the packaging, I'm sure we could tie-in with any final packages that the mobile team wound up using (I'm not sure whether they intend to use Chrome or Chromium). Chrome will certainly be receiving support throughout the LTS life cycle. I know that Charlie had said that switching browsers for an LTS wouldn't be a great idea, but given the points I've mentioned above, it seems one worth considering. What do you think? I quite like Chrome. I created a browser responsiveness benchmark, and found that Chrome basically always responded within 100ms regardless of background tasks, while Firefox could freeze for hundreds of milliseconds (and sometimes even for seconds) at time. http://www.ucc.asn.au/~mccabedj/BrowserResponsivenessBenchmark.html http://osdir.com/ml/ubuntu-sounder/2009-10/msg00288.html However, I am a bit surprised that Chrome will be in Lucid, as I thought that Chrome was not easily packaged. As I understand, RedHat is not packaging Chrome yet: Callaway: Chromium: Why it isn't in Fedora yet as a proper package [December 1, 2009] http://lwn.net/Articles/364528/ -- John C. McCabe-Dansted -- xubuntu-devel mailing list xubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/xubuntu-devel
Re: Replacing Firefox with Google Chrome
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) jonat...@ubuntu.com wrote: HI Jim On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Jim Campbell jwcampb...@gmail.com wrote: I know that Charlie had said that switching browsers for an LTS wouldn't be a great idea, but given the points I've mentioned above, it seems one worth considering. What do you think? I also use Chrome/ium and performance-wise it's much better even on my fast machines. It doesn't seem to be in main or universe yet though, which I'm quite sure would be a prerequisite for getting it in Xubuntu. Did they perhaps also discuss a roadmap for its inclusion at UDS? -Jonathan Hi Jonathan, It looks as though they are targeting Alpha3 for inclusion in the archives. https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/mobile-lucid-arm-lightweightbrowser https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DiscussionArmLightweightBrowser Although the notes are ARM-specific, could anyone tell me if Chromium would be built only for ARM? I assume that it would be built for all architectures at the same time. Jim -- xubuntu-devel mailing list xubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/xubuntu-devel
Re: Replacing Firefox with Google Chrome
Hi, Just to clarify... are we talking about google chrome, or chromium? As i understand they are 2 different things. Since LL will be a LTS release, maybe we shouldn't include beta software. Best, Kaspar 2010/1/13 Jim Campbell jwcampb...@gmail.com On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 11:38 AM, Jonathan Carter (highvoltage) jonat...@ubuntu.com wrote: HI Jim On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 6:57 PM, Jim Campbell jwcampb...@gmail.com wrote: I know that Charlie had said that switching browsers for an LTS wouldn't be a great idea, but given the points I've mentioned above, it seems one worth considering. What do you think? I also use Chrome/ium and performance-wise it's much better even on my fast machines. It doesn't seem to be in main or universe yet though, which I'm quite sure would be a prerequisite for getting it in Xubuntu. Did they perhaps also discuss a roadmap for its inclusion at UDS? -Jonathan Hi Jonathan, It looks as though they are targeting Alpha3 for inclusion in the archives. https://blueprints.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+spec/mobile-lucid-arm-lightweightbrowser https://wiki.ubuntu.com/DiscussionArmLightweightBrowser Although the notes are ARM-specific, could anyone tell me if Chromium would be built only for ARM? I assume that it would be built for all architectures at the same time. Jim -- xubuntu-devel mailing list xubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/xubuntu-devel -- xubuntu-devel mailing list xubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/xubuntu-devel
Re: Replacing Firefox with Google Chrome
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Kaspar Kööp meb...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, Just to clarify... are we talking about google chrome, or chromium? As i understand they are 2 different things. Since LL will be a LTS release, maybe we shouldn't include beta software. Best, Kaspar It looks like the mobile team is considering Chromium, so we would go with what they choose. With regards to the beta status, keep in mind that Ubuntu included betas for Firefox 3.0 in the Hardy Heron release because they knew that it was advantageous to them, the betas were stable enough for initial use, and they knew that the 3.0 release would be well-supported well throughout the 8.04 LTS life cycle. Because the mobile team is going to include Chromium, we can know that it will receive updates throughout the 10.04 LTS life cycle, too. Jim -- xubuntu-devel mailing list xubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/xubuntu-devel
Re: Replacing Firefox with Google Chrome
On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 7:43 PM, Jim Campbell jwcampb...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Jan 13, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Kaspar Kööp meb...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, Just to clarify... are we talking about google chrome, or chromium? As i understand they are 2 different things. Since LL will be a LTS release, maybe we shouldn't include beta software. Best, Kaspar It looks like the mobile team is considering Chromium, so we would go with what they choose. With regards to the beta status, keep in mind that Ubuntu included betas for Firefox 3.0 in the Hardy Heron release because they knew that it was advantageous to them, the betas were stable enough for initial use, and they knew that the 3.0 release would be well-supported well throughout the 8.04 LTS life cycle. Because the mobile team is going to include Chromium, we can know that it will receive updates throughout the 10.04 LTS life cycle, too. I'm definitely not opposed to including Chromium per se, but I am when it comes to Lucid. Though the support argument may be valid, I think it requires more testing and doesn't have enough guarantees to work for an LTS release. It doesn't just mean Chromium should work, it also means that other applications should work with it. I can imagine there being applications having opening in Firefox hardcoded due to it being the de facto standard. I recall that switching browsers for me did cause some additional problems. Not unovercomeable (that's not a word, is it?), but not worth doing in an LTS release. It should just work. For any application people install. Also, there are additional issues, such as UI consistency. I think it definitely warrants a thorough evaluation that could be started already, but should IMHO not be put into action in this cycle (if there even would be time for that, which I doubt). Jim Best, -- Vincent -- xubuntu-devel mailing list xubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/xubuntu-devel
