On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 4:04 PM, Jim Campbell <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>wrote: > >> 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. > > 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 :) > Jim > > -- Vincent
-- xubuntu-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/xubuntu-devel
