(11-07-2014, 04:45 AM)Coastie link Wrote: [quote author=gold_finger link=topic=1099.msg6766#msg6766 date=1415306359]
... there are a number of people who would react to the inclusion of anything of Google's by default as highly offensive due to the extreme level of data mining and privacy intrusions their business model is based on. I am one of them. Even though I know that I could (and would) immediately delete and replace it, ...
I would not find Chrome as the default browser offensive but I too would remove it immediately due to privacy concerns and replace it with Firefox.
[/quote]
The funny thing is that by default Firefox is set to track *as well*. You have to turn it off in your settings (the same as Chrome):
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/dnt/
Interesting that I just visited this link with the default included Firefox in LL 2.0, and "Do Not Track" is set to OFF by default.
My point is that if the only point people have in not using Chrome over Firefox is because it "tracks", that point is moot. BOTH browsers are by default set to track you and that setting can be disabled in BOTH. Actually, Chrome has even deeper settings to disable a plethora of things that can bug you (see the link I posted previously). Memory usage as far as I have seen is on par. With a few tabs open now, Firefox is consuming 180MB. Chrome with the same tabs open is consuming 190MB. Results vary, but I have not found any memory usage to be an issue with either browser even on low memory machines.
The only thing I can see for not wanting Chrome is because it is currently popular to "hate" Google. I personally do not care whom delivers the goods...as long as they work good
I love firefox, do not get me wrong. I have been using it since it was "Firebird", and Seamonkey, etc. They are just now lacking features nowadays.The way I understand it, LL is supposed to be here to be fast, light and an easy transition for newcomers migrating from Windows platforms. How is it when that newcomer opens Firefox and cannot view modern flash content because the default Linux flash plugin is no longer supported by Adobe and will never get another update beyond the now extremely outdated v11? Or the Windows user who opens Firefox and navigates to Netflix just to find that streaming their Walking Dead episodes does not work because they are running an "unsupported web browser". I can tell you for sure that anyone I would introduce it to in its default state would not go for it. It is not until I add Chrome that it is ok by their standards. Chrome fixes these problems for a new user. As much as people do not like that reality, it is a fact.
If it were different and Firefox could handle these modern technologies in Linux (be it if they decided to support them, or they decided to support Firefox) I would be all for it of course. But it cannot...so I cannot.
I have seen firsthand over the years what lack of browser support has done to OS's and devices. My beloved BeOS suffered from lack of browser support with up to date technologies. My Playbook suffered a terrible fate largely because people wanted to stream Netflix on tablets and it was unsupported (although I am not calling it the only reason, but rest assured it was a big one). The internet is the biggest item used in todays modern computing, and the browser is the tool to get you there. If it lacks technologies, the experience is hindered. And nobody likes that