Slashdot Mirror

Look out Mac OS X!

They've always been bad at organisation. Cue quote #279: http://quotes.burntelectrons.org/279

The earliest reference I believe would be this quote

http://quotes.burntelectrons.org/1976

Now people claiming to "represent wbeelsoi" are claiming that despite Spiegelmock not knowing about it, the 30 exploits are real, and it looks like they're even trying to extort MoCo for $50K?

I don't myself know why the patches are questionable, but I do know that core gecko developers think so.

The reasons stem from Mozilla's recent insistence on trademark fidelity and its preferences regarding Firefox patches. Debian doesn't want to accept the original trademarked fox & globe logo; they don't see it as really 'free' to use. On the other hand, Mozilla doesn't want Firefox distributed under that name if it lacks the logo.

The problem with allowing the name and logo to be separated is that it damages the brand identity - people might wonder whether this "Firefox" with one logo is really the same as a "Firefox" with a different logo, or people might think the unofficial logo is the official one (which would clearly harm the brand - consider Firefox t-shirts and the logo).

Mozilla also wants Debian patches to be submitted to them before distribution, and claims that's what others (Red Hat and Novell) are already doing. But some believe development and releases will slow down if distribution-specific patches have to be checked and accepted first.

Both sides have a point. Often, problems that users encounter with "Firefox" in distributions turn out to be a result of the questionable downstream modifications the distro maintainers added. Do you really think Mozilla would be worried and spending their time on these kinds of issues if there wasn't a good chance that people would associate Mozilla Firefox with low quality due to distro modifications? If there was no risk of damaging the brand, it would certainly be better for everyone to use the same logo and name.

From the distro's point of view, of course it's annoying to have to get approval on all patch sets. However, there is generally a long time between releases anyway (especially Debian's releases ;)), and so long as the distro's patch set doesn't change between security releases, no additional review is required (as I understand it) for the security updates, so this really shouldn't be a problem there.

We will surely see more clashes between copyright claims and 'really free' distros such as Debian. Ubuntu is also asking similar questions.

One irony of the situation is that Debian itself has the same problem with their branding: if you modify the distribution, you can't call it Debian any more. It's an unfortunate issue that if you want to have a useful (i.e. recognizable and trusted) brand, you can't allow people to ship their own derivatives of your product while using your branding.

Allowing users of your product complete freedom is a nice ideal, but it's not possible to do under the current laws unless you place no value on branding.

Ditto on my blog. Exact same timing with money too. This is a rampant problem from what I can see. And trying ot get ANY information out of them is impossible. I can't even get telephone calls returned. They NEVER will tell you what invaolid clicks there were, when, etc. So basically, they get free space on yoru site, and get out of paying, and never have to prove why.

Yes, great unbiased source, that.

"It's amazing that he believes this stuff, and I honestly can't find the motive."

But it seems that some FOSS supporters just can't resist the chance to spread FUD and lies. For example, here's the editor of MozillaNews, no less, accusing Opera of lying. When people point out his contradictions and errors he refuses to retract his false statements, but instead bans people or he removes their comments.

When I see crap like this, and it isn't all that uncommon, I get this sinking feeling that FOSS is attracting too many zealots. They are doing the community a disservice by pushing people away. People like your friend.

I don't like Microsoft or Bill Gates, but I continue to use Windows. That's what I'm used to, and even though I've installed lots of different Linux distributions, including Slackware back in the days before you had menus or a GUI to configure X, I find myself sticking with Windows. With 2000 and XP, Microsoft has produced stable operating systems, and they work well for me. Yet FOSS zealots continue their jokes about bluescreens, etc.

Now, anyone who has read my comments will see that I actually flame Microsoft shills on Slashdot. I'm not a zealot either way. I use Windows because I can't be bothered to switch over, and 2000/XP actually works well for me. I also play games every now and then, and Windows is the only realistic alternative for people like me. But I hope SCO is beaten to a pulp by IBM in the court room, and that Microsoft gets slapped around hard for their anti-competitive practices.

I also use Opera, and I'm getting annoyed with the FUD and lies spread by Firefox zealots. So yeah, I can understand where your friend is coming from.

"It's amazing that he believes this stuff, and I honestly can't find the motive."

But it seems that some FOSS supporters just can't resist the chance to spread FUD and lies. For example, here's the editor of MozillaNews, no less, accusing Opera of lying. When people point out his contradictions and errors he refuses to retract his false statements, but instead bans people or he removes their comments.

When I see crap like this, and it isn't all that uncommon, I get this sinking feeling that FOSS is attracting too many zealots. They are doing the community a disservice by pushing people away. People like your friend.

I don't like Microsoft or Bill Gates, but I continue to use Windows. That's what I'm used to, and even though I've installed lots of different Linux distributions, including Slackware back in the days before you had menus or a GUI to configure X, I find myself sticking with Windows. With 2000 and XP, Microsoft has produced stable operating systems, and they work well for me. Yet FOSS zealots continue their jokes about bluescreens, etc.

Now, anyone who has read my comments will see that I actually flame Microsoft shills on Slashdot. I'm not a zealot either way. I use Windows because I can't be bothered to switch over, and 2000/XP actually works well for me. I also play games every now and then, and Windows is the only realistic alternative for people like me. But I hope SCO is beaten to a pulp by IBM in the court room, and that Microsoft gets slapped around hard for their anti-competitive practices.

I also use Opera, and I'm getting annoyed with the FUD and lies spread by Firefox zealots. So yeah, I can understand where your friend is coming from.