6 ms·

Canonical Will Own Your Search: New mandatory Ubuntu plugin takes over Firefox

75 points by windsurfer 17y ago

cstejerean 17y ago
From one of the commenters: "This new extension is installed by stealth, hijacks the search functions of the browser by masquerading itself as plain Google search but funnels those searches to your own custom Google search, and some data those searches done by unknowing users is being collected by someone at Canonical." I don't like what Canonical is doing here, or the way they answered people's concerns on that thread. I really hope this "feature" goes away by the time Karmic ships.
- TallGuyShort 17y ago
  Yeah, I'm less worried about the feature than I am about the attitude that put it there, though. Microsoft did a similar thing during updates a while ago. You couldn't uninstall it without editing the registry, you could only disable it, and you were never notified of it. They way they've done it is just sneaky, and not like them at all. Not a good sign - but I've always wandered if Ubuntu might become too commercial. Maybe it's time I investigate another Distro just in case.
  - bmelton 17y ago
    Wouldn't it be fairly simple to just fork Ubuntu? If that completely misses what you meant, I would probably recommend just stepping back to Debian.
    - benatkin 17y ago
      I've heard good things about Arch, if you want another bleeding-edge desktop distro. The nice thing about Ubuntu, though, is it's good for both desktop and servers, and makes it really easy to use the desktop distro for development and then use the same stuff on the server.
      - vidarh 17y ago
        That's what OpenVz, KVM or Xen is for. I don't know about Ubuntu, but on the latest Debian getting an OpenVz setup going is an apt-get of a single package and then you have the pleasure of having your dev stuff nicely isolated and there's no reason to worry about whether the distro is good for both desktop and server anymore (it also means you can make conservative choices for the servers that'd be "unpleasant" to live with on the desktop...) My home box is running 14-15 containers now - I spin up a new one for all larger projects, plus a few others. It's lightweight enough that I don't notice the overhead.
  - daemin 17y ago
    Well in a more recent update Microsoft enabled the addon's uninstallation, so now you can remove it without registry hacking.
jrockway 17y ago
I love how nasty people get about this stuff: "For the last time: Who is the mastermind behind Multisearch and who is requiring its implementation?" Don't they realize that Ubuntu is a commercial OS that's given away for free? If you want Freedom, use Debian!
- windsurfer 17y ago
  But I love Linux. I want some distro, any distro to gain large market share. The linux world is too shattered, too splintered to make a dent in the consumer marketplace, and it needs a large, popular distro like Ubuntu to create focus. Adding this sneaky extension breaks user trust and splinters the linux user base.
  - _pi 17y ago
    Mamma and Pappa don't care about this only nerds do. Nerds can move away from linux but I guess cannonical feels Ubuntu has gained traction with Mama and papa and that it doesn't need nerds anymore.
    - andreyf 17y ago
      Yours might, but most Mammas and Pappas still don't know what an operating system is.
    - ramy_d 17y ago
      then canonical forgot who installed ubuntu on mamma and pappa in the first place. what was done can be undone.
  - thingie 17y ago
    And what does the market share bring you? Have Ubuntu and Canonical got large userbase willing to pay for a support and further development (like redhat), or have they attracted people willing and able to contribute someting (like debian)? Not so much. They only can (try to) dictate to others and make them do what they want and need. Which is hardly making Linux any better, I think.
viraptor 17y ago
For some reason that bug reminds me of the way they removed update-manager from the notification area. - No clear public information before the change, even if it affects almost 100% of users. - Mark S. responding to the reported bug. - Some devs avoiding straight responses. - Introduced in late alphas, before the freezes... I really hope that they just had a "great idea" on some meeting and people responsible for the packages have problems in handling the situation (they are attacked by hordes of outraged geeks ;) ). But if the situation repeats in 10.04, maybe it's a sign of things going bad? Unfortunately launchpad doesn't count bug subscribers, but it looks like ~60 + 2 duplicate bugs and everyone saying they don't like the idea as it is presented right now... 2 weeks after it was introduced in alpha version. IMHO that's a pretty strong signal that something's going seriously wrong.
jcapote 17y ago
Who uses the bundled firefox anyway? It's always a release behind (and now this)...
- vincent_vega 17y ago
  Many, actually
SwellJoe 17y ago
Jebus. Some Ubuntu users are just nuts. I didn't think the folks who write YouTube comments were smart enough to know how to install Linux, but I guess they've managed to figure out Ubuntu. The anger, tin foil hats, and self-righteousness, are kinda disturbing. I've been involved in Open Source software development for 12 years or so, and I've seen this kind of thing in the past, of course, but not very often so much of it in one place, and over a clearly experimental feature in an alpha (e.g. for developers and testers) release, that was previously discussed and documented to be a user workflow data gathering tool. Unless one assumes that Ubuntu/Canonical actually has evil intentions (in which case, why would you use the OS, when there are many other options?), this kind of response is unwarranted, undeserved, and unproductive. I'd also wager that the people doing the most abusive complaining are the ones who have contributed the least to the community, while the people they are verbally abusing are the folks who actually make the software they are complaining about.
freetard 17y ago
I don't see what the big deal is. If Canonical can make a little more money with this to keep funding the distro then good for them, it's a barely profitable company that offer its main product for free. As for the extension, it gives the same results as regular google, don't like it? Remove it, it's just a firefox extension. Or install your own firefox.
- windsurfer 17y ago
  It doesn't give the same results. The interface is terrible compared to the default Google interface.
  - andyking 17y ago
    I'm not daft enough to be using Karmic alphas on my home computer but on the current 9.04 version with bundled Firefox 3.0, the default Ubuntu start page and the "real" Google homepage give quite different search results. Perhaps it's down to the Ubuntu page delivering US search results or something, I don't know - but I definitely prefer the standard Google page. Ubuntu: http://www.google.com/cse?cx=partner-pub-2070091971271392%3Aougxymc6y19&ie=UTF-8&q=Radio+1&sa=Search http://www.google.com/cse?cx=partner-pub-2070091971271392%3A... Google: http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=Radio+1&btnG=Google+Search&meta=&aq=f&oq= http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=Radio+1&btnG=...
thenduks 17y ago
Just a clarification: It's not 'mandatory', it just gets installed by default with the Firefox package. Put clearly this means "you can just disable it". Still, what a crappy 'extension' to Firefox :/, this is why I build mine from source.
- windsurfer 17y ago
  You can't uninstall it without removing Firefox though. It's enabled by default, too, so all users of your Ubuntu machine will get it enabled no matter what.
  - martey 17y ago
    It's a Firefox extension, and so can be disabled like any other Firefox extension.
    - blasdel 17y ago
      It's not like any other Firefox extension -- it's a system extension, it's not in your profile in ~/.mozilla It will always be enabled by default, you can't uninstall it, and you can only disable it after you've created a profile.
      - thenduks 17y ago
        It's enabled 'by default', but it's still a regular Firefox extension that can be turned off easily. Comment #2 by Alexander Sack reads: Thanks. To workaround you can disable the extension in tools -> addons. Later Adam Bielinsky fleshes it out: At the moment, every user on a machine has to click Tools, then Addons, then Extensions, then Multisearch, then Disable, and then restart Firefox.
- maweaver 17y ago
  You're right in that it's not mandatory, but the fact that they keep saying it can be easily removed "for the time being" does make me a little suspicious. "you can disable the extension "Multisearch" in Tools -> Addons for the time being." "its just an intermediate thing what you see now and you can always disable it in Tools -> Addons for the time being." Maybe they're just being cautious with their wording because it's still alpha.
cookiecaper 17y ago
I don't see that big of an issue with this. If it helps Ubuntu make money and all it does is make the Google search result page look different, then it's fine. It's installed by default; it's removable and disableable just like every other Fx extension. What's the big deal?
stse 17y ago
Would have been much better if they made a deal with google and firefox and got there own 'real' search page. Like http://www.google.com/firefox http://www.google.com/firefox
ZeroGravitas 17y ago
Ubuntu response: http://www.asoftsite.org/s9y/archives/162-What-is-this-Multisearch-thing-in-my-Firefox-about.html http://www.asoftsite.org/s9y/archives/162-What-is-this-Multi... Basically, this is a quick and dirty way to gather some usage data. Seems reasonable to me.
- hvs 17y ago
  You don't gather usage data without informing the individual you are gathering it from. It's a violation of privacy. This is completely unreasonable.
  - loginx 17y ago
    So any website that uses any forms of analytics (gathering usage data without informing the individual) is violating your privacy, and acting in "completely unreasonable" ways? If personal data was being collected, that would be a clear violation of privacy, but adding a simple bit of metadata to a GET request to get general statistics is completely reasonable by my book.
    - req2 17y ago
      There's a fine line in play here. Websites are opt-in, as are OSes, but I don't think many people think of Firefox as 'Ubuntu Firefox', and rightfully don't expect that their OS is going to tamper with the expected behavior of known, third party programs. For the normal user[1], this is a 'browser lock-in' that seems worse than what everyone got mad at Microsoft for. [1] By normal user, I mean the non-Linux-guru type that wouldn't think to try all the nonobvious workarounds. This clearly is no problem to the 'You only get to use Linux if you submit patches' crowd, but should be a big problem for roughly every other open source free software crowd.
- ZeroGravitas 17y ago
  Also, where did this headline come from? Compare: Canonical Will Own Your Search: New mandatory Ubuntu plugin takes over Firefox vs. Bug #402767: multisearch add on blocks the functionality of firefox location bar And how many parts of the top one are actually true? Maybe none?

75 points by windsurfer 17y ago

From one of the commenters: "This new extension is installed by stealth, hijacks the search functions of the browser by masquerading itself as plain Google search but funnels those searches to your own custom Google search, and some data those searches done by unknowing users is being collected by someone at Canonical." I don't like what Canonical is doing here, or the way they answered people's concerns on that thread. I really hope this "feature" goes away by the time Karmic ships.

TallGuyShort 17y ago
Yeah, I'm less worried about the feature than I am about the attitude that put it there, though. Microsoft did a similar thing during updates a while ago. You couldn't uninstall it without editing the registry, you could only disable it, and you were never notified of it. They way they've done it is just sneaky, and not like them at all. Not a good sign - but I've always wandered if Ubuntu might become too commercial. Maybe it's time I investigate another Distro just in case.
- bmelton 17y ago
  Wouldn't it be fairly simple to just fork Ubuntu? If that completely misses what you meant, I would probably recommend just stepping back to Debian.
  - benatkin 17y ago
    I've heard good things about Arch, if you want another bleeding-edge desktop distro. The nice thing about Ubuntu, though, is it's good for both desktop and servers, and makes it really easy to use the desktop distro for development and then use the same stuff on the server.
    - vidarh 17y ago
      That's what OpenVz, KVM or Xen is for. I don't know about Ubuntu, but on the latest Debian getting an OpenVz setup going is an apt-get of a single package and then you have the pleasure of having your dev stuff nicely isolated and there's no reason to worry about whether the distro is good for both desktop and server anymore (it also means you can make conservative choices for the servers that'd be "unpleasant" to live with on the desktop...) My home box is running 14-15 containers now - I spin up a new one for all larger projects, plus a few others. It's lightweight enough that I don't notice the overhead.
- daemin 17y ago
  Well in a more recent update Microsoft enabled the addon's uninstallation, so now you can remove it without registry hacking.

jrockway 17y ago

I love how nasty people get about this stuff: "For the last time: Who is the mastermind behind Multisearch and who is requiring its implementation?" Don't they realize that Ubuntu is a commercial OS that's given away for free? If you want Freedom, use Debian!

windsurfer 17y ago
But I love Linux. I want some distro, any distro to gain large market share. The linux world is too shattered, too splintered to make a dent in the consumer marketplace, and it needs a large, popular distro like Ubuntu to create focus. Adding this sneaky extension breaks user trust and splinters the linux user base.
- _pi 17y ago
  Mamma and Pappa don't care about this only nerds do. Nerds can move away from linux but I guess cannonical feels Ubuntu has gained traction with Mama and papa and that it doesn't need nerds anymore.
  - andreyf 17y ago
    Yours might, but most Mammas and Pappas still don't know what an operating system is.
  - ramy_d 17y ago
    then canonical forgot who installed ubuntu on mamma and pappa in the first place. what was done can be undone.
- thingie 17y ago
  And what does the market share bring you? Have Ubuntu and Canonical got large userbase willing to pay for a support and further development (like redhat), or have they attracted people willing and able to contribute someting (like debian)? Not so much. They only can (try to) dictate to others and make them do what they want and need. Which is hardly making Linux any better, I think.

viraptor 17y ago

For some reason that bug reminds me of the way they removed update-manager from the notification area. - No clear public information before the change, even if it affects almost 100% of users. - Mark S. responding to the reported bug. - Some devs avoiding straight responses. - Introduced in late alphas, before the freezes... I really hope that they just had a "great idea" on some meeting and people responsible for the packages have problems in handling the situation (they are attacked by hordes of outraged geeks ;) ). But if the situation repeats in 10.04, maybe it's a sign of things going bad? Unfortunately launchpad doesn't count bug subscribers, but it looks like ~60 + 2 duplicate bugs and everyone saying they don't like the idea as it is presented right now... 2 weeks after it was introduced in alpha version. IMHO that's a pretty strong signal that something's going seriously wrong.

jcapote 17y ago

Who uses the bundled firefox anyway? It's always a release behind (and now this)...

vincent_vega 17y ago
Many, actually

SwellJoe 17y ago

Jebus. Some Ubuntu users are just nuts. I didn't think the folks who write YouTube comments were smart enough to know how to install Linux, but I guess they've managed to figure out Ubuntu. The anger, tin foil hats, and self-righteousness, are kinda disturbing. I've been involved in Open Source software development for 12 years or so, and I've seen this kind of thing in the past, of course, but not very often so much of it in one place, and over a clearly experimental feature in an alpha (e.g. for developers and testers) release, that was previously discussed and documented to be a user workflow data gathering tool. Unless one assumes that Ubuntu/Canonical actually has evil intentions (in which case, why would you use the OS, when there are many other options?), this kind of response is unwarranted, undeserved, and unproductive. I'd also wager that the people doing the most abusive complaining are the ones who have contributed the least to the community, while the people they are verbally abusing are the folks who actually make the software they are complaining about.

freetard 17y ago

I don't see what the big deal is. If Canonical can make a little more money with this to keep funding the distro then good for them, it's a barely profitable company that offer its main product for free. As for the extension, it gives the same results as regular google, don't like it? Remove it, it's just a firefox extension. Or install your own firefox.

windsurfer 17y ago
It doesn't give the same results. The interface is terrible compared to the default Google interface.
- andyking 17y ago
  I'm not daft enough to be using Karmic alphas on my home computer but on the current 9.04 version with bundled Firefox 3.0, the default Ubuntu start page and the "real" Google homepage give quite different search results. Perhaps it's down to the Ubuntu page delivering US search results or something, I don't know - but I definitely prefer the standard Google page. Ubuntu: http://www.google.com/cse?cx=partner-pub-2070091971271392%3Aougxymc6y19&ie=UTF-8&q=Radio+1&sa=Search http://www.google.com/cse?cx=partner-pub-2070091971271392%3A... Google: http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=Radio+1&btnG=Google+Search&meta=&aq=f&oq= http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=Radio+1&btnG=...

thenduks 17y ago

Just a clarification: It's not 'mandatory', it just gets installed by default with the Firefox package. Put clearly this means "you can just disable it". Still, what a crappy 'extension' to Firefox :/, this is why I build mine from source.

windsurfer 17y ago
You can't uninstall it without removing Firefox though. It's enabled by default, too, so all users of your Ubuntu machine will get it enabled no matter what.
- martey 17y ago
  It's a Firefox extension, and so can be disabled like any other Firefox extension.
  - blasdel 17y ago
    It's not like any other Firefox extension -- it's a system extension, it's not in your profile in ~/.mozilla It will always be enabled by default, you can't uninstall it, and you can only disable it after you've created a profile.
    - thenduks 17y ago
      It's enabled 'by default', but it's still a regular Firefox extension that can be turned off easily. Comment #2 by Alexander Sack reads: Thanks. To workaround you can disable the extension in tools -> addons. Later Adam Bielinsky fleshes it out: At the moment, every user on a machine has to click Tools, then Addons, then Extensions, then Multisearch, then Disable, and then restart Firefox.
maweaver 17y ago
You're right in that it's not mandatory, but the fact that they keep saying it can be easily removed "for the time being" does make me a little suspicious. "you can disable the extension "Multisearch" in Tools -> Addons for the time being." "its just an intermediate thing what you see now and you can always disable it in Tools -> Addons for the time being." Maybe they're just being cautious with their wording because it's still alpha.

cookiecaper 17y ago

I don't see that big of an issue with this. If it helps Ubuntu make money and all it does is make the Google search result page look different, then it's fine. It's installed by default; it's removable and disableable just like every other Fx extension. What's the big deal?

stse 17y ago

Would have been much better if they made a deal with google and firefox and got there own 'real' search page. Like http://www.google.com/firefox http://www.google.com/firefox

ZeroGravitas 17y ago

Ubuntu response: http://www.asoftsite.org/s9y/archives/162-What-is-this-Multisearch-thing-in-my-Firefox-about.html http://www.asoftsite.org/s9y/archives/162-What-is-this-Multi... Basically, this is a quick and dirty way to gather some usage data. Seems reasonable to me.

hvs 17y ago
You don't gather usage data without informing the individual you are gathering it from. It's a violation of privacy. This is completely unreasonable.
- loginx 17y ago
  So any website that uses any forms of analytics (gathering usage data without informing the individual) is violating your privacy, and acting in "completely unreasonable" ways? If personal data was being collected, that would be a clear violation of privacy, but adding a simple bit of metadata to a GET request to get general statistics is completely reasonable by my book.
  - req2 17y ago
    There's a fine line in play here. Websites are opt-in, as are OSes, but I don't think many people think of Firefox as 'Ubuntu Firefox', and rightfully don't expect that their OS is going to tamper with the expected behavior of known, third party programs. For the normal user[1], this is a 'browser lock-in' that seems worse than what everyone got mad at Microsoft for. [1] By normal user, I mean the non-Linux-guru type that wouldn't think to try all the nonobvious workarounds. This clearly is no problem to the 'You only get to use Linux if you submit patches' crowd, but should be a big problem for roughly every other open source free software crowd.
ZeroGravitas 17y ago
Also, where did this headline come from? Compare: Canonical Will Own Your Search: New mandatory Ubuntu plugin takes over Firefox vs. Bug #402767: multisearch add on blocks the functionality of firefox location bar And how many parts of the top one are actually true? Maybe none?