> Clicking on the clearly marked dropdown arrow and selecting another search engine is too hard?
For most people. Yes.
For my part, arguing with the deeply entrenched Firefox Fanboy Alliance is too thankless. Dig your own graves. We can revisit the situation in a couple of years, when the reality has become more clear. Today, we Linux folks still tend to be a bit blind to it. "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" and all.
Posted Aug 11, 2009 22:59 UTC (Tue) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313)
[Link]
so what would be clear enough for you?
or is _anything_ where they accept money to set a default unacceptable to you?
where does it says that?
Posted Aug 12, 2009 6:39 UTC (Wed) by hppnq (subscriber, #14462)
[Link]
People who care about being anonymous have plenty of options. No distribution can not ship Firefox. No distribution can not provide an interface to Google.
But also, no distribution wants to ship with Tor enabled or even included by default. Why? Because 1) in some environments you may have to explain why you need this and 2) because it doesn't solve the problem at all. Or do you trust your ISP?
Face it. You're on CCTV. This is not at all about privacy, it is about trust.
where does it says that?
Posted Aug 12, 2009 7:32 UTC (Wed) by hppnq (subscriber, #14462)
[Link]
Ah, ENOCOFFEE, commented on the wrong comment. Sorry.
where does it says that?
Posted Aug 13, 2009 4:19 UTC (Thu) by rqosa (guest, #24136)
[Link]
> No distribution can not ship
Firefox.
Actually, there's isn't really any compelling reason for a distribution to
ship "Firefox". Arch and Debian, for instance, don't ship "Firefox"; they
ship Shiretoko and Iceweasel (respectively) instead.
where does it says that?
Posted Aug 13, 2009 12:34 UTC (Thu) by hppnq (subscriber, #14462)
[Link]
The point was: people want to actually use software. The beauty of Free Software is not that we can all browse or search the Internet anonymously, it is that there are distributions like Incognito.