I beg to differ, at least a lot of their apps are not open source (Google Earth, their search infrastructure etc etc), so if that's "completely open source friendly" then how do we call companies that are actually 100% open source friendly? "Super mega duper open source friendly"??
i knew someone would say that.
we call google "completely open source friendly".
we call other companies "completely open source"
I'll also stick with Google, not because I have anything against Bing. But simply because in my experience Google's search engine is better and more usable than the alternatives around.
I do like to see some more competition though. Google is getting a little too big.
What kind of competition? It seems to me that search quality is not the competition. Only Google is providing such high quality search results. If the "competition" is competing then they aren't doing it in a way that benefits the consumer. Not if they aren't competing in quality, cost, or some other consumer measurable benefit.
As to the size of Google, what is the critical mass that makes an organization bad? I don't see how size is necessarily proportional to evil. There are plenty of bad organizations in every size bracket, big and small.
I'm not seeing competition that's attractive to me and size doesn't always matter.
It also seems to me that Bing and Yahoo would do better to start competing for more than just the default slot. Google made it to the top without having that benefit. I think that says a lot. It also seems like the default game is all that MS and Yahoo are interested in playing. It isn't working but that's all they seem to be interested in.
On one hand I'm glad that Canonical can plunder some of the blunder. On the other hand I wish the blunder wasn't there at all.
Edit: Another thought on size: Ubuntu is the biggest Linux. Does that mean they are also the evil Linux?