The Mozilla Foundation

Sayonara by tomblackwell · 2003-07-15 05:38 · Score: 5, Funny

We're pleased to be dumping Mozilla, er, forming the Mozilla Foundation. This money pit, er, worthy cause is something we'd love to see the back of, er support.

Re:Sayonara by chundo · 2003-07-15 06:17 · Score: 3, Insightful

I think this is a big positive for Mozilla. I've always been worried that AOL's lack of dedication to Mozilla and Netscape would lead to its demise. The creation of an independent organization to manage the project (and own all IP, trademarks and associated domain names - thanks AOL!) is huge.

AOL may be pleased to "dump" it. But I'm pleased they are too. In addition to the autonomy, perhaps other ISPs (Earthlink, etc) may be more willing to adopt Mozilla as their default browser now that it's disassociated with AOL.

It's too popular and useful to die. The foundation will continue to be supported by the major Linux players (with developers, hardware and money) just like Linux itself is.

-j
Re:Sayonara by Gerv · 2003-07-15 07:24 · Score: 3, Interesting

Have to wonder, will netscape in the future have to pay mozilla for the right to produce a closed-source version.

Your question implies that Netscapes 6 and 7 were closed source. This is only partially true - the bits like AIM were closed, but the MPLed bits were open.

In the future, as now, any use of the code by Netscape/AOL will be under the MPL (or another license like the LGPL, if all Mozilla code is available under it, and AOL chooses to use it instead for whatever reason.)

No-one will ever have to pay mozilla.org for the right to use the source. That's what open source means. And no-one will be able to pay anyone for the right to produce a closed-source version - because doing that requires permission from several thousand copyright holders. mozilla.org does not own the copyright to Mozilla.

Gerv

(gerv@mozilla.org)

So, no more AOL/Netscape support? by JoeBuck · 2003-07-15 05:40 · Score: 3, Interesting

Does this mean that Netscape (rather, AOL-Time-Warner) is withdrawing its support? Will they still be providing facilities, network connectivity, etc. or will the Mozilla Foundation have to raise all that on its own? Will Netscape be providing any money to the Mozilla Foundation?

Re:So, no more AOL/Netscape support? by The+Evil+Couch · 2003-07-15 05:43 · Score: 3, Informative

The Mozilla Foundation will also promote the distribution and adoption of our flagship applications based on that code. AOL, IBM, Sun Microsystems, Red Hat, and other companies will continue to support Mozilla through the Foundation.
off the front page of the site. Moz continues to get its support, they're just polishing up a bat to hit Gates with a few times.

--
The World's Worst Webcomic!
Re:So, no more AOL/Netscape support? by iceT · 2003-07-15 05:49 · Score: 5, Interesting

Think of it this way:

1) Mozilla development and advocacy becomes a non-profit organization.

2) AOL/Time Warner contributes all the same money that they used to contribute.

3) AOL/Time Warner now gets to write off the contribution because it's to a non-profit organization.

--
-- You can't idiot-proof anything, because they're always coming out with better idiots.
Re:So, no more AOL/Netscape support? by joelgrimes · 2003-07-15 06:15 · Score: 3, Insightful

IANAAccountant, but since Mozilla was a legitimate business expense, the money that AOL put into it was already a write-off, in the sense that it was money that didn't show up on the bottom line.

--
Textbooks and Open Educational Resources

Wow by Plutor · 2003-07-15 05:40 · Score: 5, Interesting

This is nothing but a Good Thing(TM). Congrats to the Mozilla team on their (apparent) independance. In other news, check out the redesigned web page.

Isn't it ironic that the top cells don't render the way they meant in Mozilla 1.4? They shouldn't be using tables for layout!

Re:Wow by jeremyds · 2003-07-15 06:21 · Score: 4, Funny

From the http://www.mozilla.org source:

@import url("/frontpage/nav4Sucks.css");

This wouldn't happen to be a reference to Netscape Navigator 4, would it?
Re:Wow by Gerv · 2003-07-15 06:42 · Score: 4, Informative

Apologies for the less-than-perfect technical nature of the new website - it was done in a bit of a hurry. Still, looks better than the old one, huh? :-)

invalid HTML.

Hopefully fixed in CVS; waiting for the site to sync.

Gerv
(gerv@mozilla.org)

looks like Moz is getting serious by The+Evil+Couch · 2003-07-15 05:41 · Score: 4, Interesting

The Mozilla Foundation will also promote the distribution and adoption of our flagship applications based on that code. AOL, IBM, Sun Microsystems, Red Hat, and other companies will continue to support Mozilla through the Foundation.

I guess Mozilla's ready to actively try to knock IE down.

--
The World's Worst Webcomic!

Re:looks like Moz is getting serious by r00k123 · 2003-07-15 06:04 · Score: 5, Insightful

Mozilla will never knock IE down.
Why?
Because I know HUNDREDS of people that refer to IE as "the internet".
If the IE shortcut gets deleted? "My internet is gone."
You can't fight the internet guys...sorry.
-Ben
Re:looks like Moz is getting serious by autechre · 2003-07-15 06:36 · Score: 4, Interesting

I guess the question is: If you replaced their shortcut to IE with a shortcut to Mozilla that used the IE icon, would they notice? There are themes for Mozilla which are designed to make it look identical to IE. OK, so they would wonder where all the popops went, but other than that, could someone such as this tell the difference?

(Yes, I know that there are a small percentage of sites out there that are brain-dead and REQUIRE IE, but if my parents never come across them, I'm betting many other people don't either. If you believe Jakob Nielson, users encountering such a site would just go find another one anyway, unless they needed it for work, banking, etc.)

[And no, I didn't trick my parents like that. They're sentient enough that I can explain to them why to use Mozilla instead of IE, and they like it better anyway.]

--
WMBC freeform/independent online radio.
Re:looks like Moz is getting serious by cprincipe · 2003-07-15 07:01 · Score: 3, Funny

If the IE shortcut gets deleted? "My internet is gone."

You say that like it's a bad thing if these folks can't get on the internet any more.

--
bun-fhuinneog agam!
Re:looks like Moz is getting serious by forwhomthebelltrolls · 2003-07-15 08:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

Because I know HUNDREDS of people that refer to IE as "the internet".

If the IE shortcut gets deleted? "My internet is gone."

I've had Mozilla Firebird as my default browser on my home windows box since the first alpha release of Phoenix. At this time I removed the IE shortcut from my wife's desktop and replaced it with a Phoenix shortcut and then told her to use that for web access in the future.

Recently, I had to reinstall the box, and forgot to replace her shortcut, and guess what... She said "My interet is gone". So what you say is true, but it doesn't just apply to IE.

FWIW: I told my wife to use IE until I got round to fixing the shortcut, she later complained that IE was not as good as the "normal internet" she was used to using.

Hm. by MerryGoByeBye · 2003-07-15 05:43 · Score: 3, Insightful

Now that there'll be an official, legal, centralized authority, does this mean that the plugins/modules will finally work with each other?

Re:Hm. by dmaxwell · 2003-07-15 08:27 · Score: 3, Informative

Your java installation and Mozilla both need to have been built with the same version of GCC. The Linux distros have mostly transitioned to GCC 3.2 but the commercial stuff often doesn't move as fast as the community on these infrastructure changes. That said, recent distro builds of Mozilla have been built with GCC 3.2. You just have to doublecheck where you are downloading your JRE from to be sure it's been built with 3.2 as well. The Blackdown guys have GCC 3.2 builds of Java 1.4.

Hm, so does this mean by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-15 05:43 · Score: 3, Interesting

AOL can now write off on its taxes the development money it spends on mozilla as donations to a nonprofit?

Read the f***ing article! by jonasj · 2003-07-15 05:44 · Score: 5, Informative

From http://www.mozilla.org/press/mozilla-foundation.ht ml:

"To help launch the new organization, America Online has pledged $2 million in cash to the Mozilla Foundation over the next two years. AOL will also contribute additional resources through equipment, domain names and trademarks, and related intellectual property, as well as providing some transitional assistance for key personnel as they move into the new organization."

--
You know, Microsoft's street address also says a lot about their mentality.

Re:Read the f***ing article! by pergamon · 2003-07-15 05:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

Very nice.

As much as we might hate AOL for littering the physical world with their signup CDs and the virtual world with their users, one has to give them props for continuing to support Mozilla.

Granted, they mainly have used Mozilla as a barganing chip to get a deal with MS, but I suspect that isn't a long term situation anyway.
Re:Read the f***ing article! by gokubi · 2003-07-15 05:58 · Score: 4, Funny

$2 million in cash

Hope they don't blow it all on a Superbowl ad.

--
I'm much funnier now that I'm a subscriber.
Re:Read the f***ing article! by Libor+Vanek · 2003-07-15 06:12 · Score: 3, Informative

I think that 5 FULL TIME MOZILLA developers are enough! There are some Mozilla jobs opening in IBM so this together with open source community makes very strong developer base.

Two Questions: by Skyshadow · 2003-07-15 05:45 · Score: 4, Interesting

I have two questions:

1. Why should I give money to Mozilla when I don't give money to and other open-source software I use? Why do they need it? What will they use it for?
2. Would said contribution be tax-deductible (not all non-profit donations are)?

Unfortunately for them, they're competing for my donated dollar against the EFF, the ACLU and (this year) whoever tries to unseat George Bush Jr. They need to make a lot better case for themselves if they're going to warrent a piece of that pie...

--
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.

Re:Two Questions: by The+Evil+Couch · 2003-07-15 05:49 · Score: 4, Funny

if you donate $1,000 or more, you get a Mozilla Dinosaur plushie doll.

--
The World's Worst Webcomic!
Re:Two Questions: by bytesmythe · 2003-07-15 05:56 · Score: 5, Insightful

A better question would be:
"Why don't you give to the other open-source software projects?"

I know it seems like a pain, but pick a few of your favorites (maybe 3 to 5) and start setting aside a little money. Collect your spare change, or sell something on eBay, or whatever. Then donate 5 to 10 bucks to each of the projects.

I would expect you'd want to feel reasonably certain the developers will put the money to good use (buying helpful books or equipment), rather than dipping into the project fund to buy pizza and beer. Still, I imagine that once you've selected some worthy projects and sent them a little money it will make you feel good to have helped, and maybe you'll even be more likely to do it again in the future.

--
bytesmythe
Hypocrisy is the resin that holds the plywood of society together.
-- Scott Meyer
Re:Two Questions: by Skyshadow · 2003-07-15 06:05 · Score: 3, Interesting

A better question would be: "Why don't you give to the other open-source software projects?"
I figured someone would ask that.
First, you should know that I'm by no stretch of the imagination a rich man. I can pay my bills, make my car payments (I don't drive an expensive car), set aside a little money but that leaves me pretty much broke.
Given that, I have to carefully prioritize where my money goes. Last year, I contributed to the ACLU, the EFF and to my public radio station, KQED. These are all good causes which, in my opinion, do demonstratively good things with my money and they all are tax deductible donations.
That's what any OSS project or company needs to contend with when they look at me for money. To be included on my list, then, they'd better (A) prove they need it, (B) prove they're using it for substantially good reasons and not wasting it, and (C) preferably set things up so I can take a tax deduction for it.
I don't see anything wrong with looking at it that way -- if I had another $5 a paycheck to give away, it'd go to the people on my list, anyhow...

--
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.

Time for some advertising by SpaceRook · 2003-07-15 05:47 · Score: 4, Insightful

I think Mozilla needs some PR people. I was watching C-SPAN the other day and the issue was spam. Lots of callers were complaining about pop-up windows as well. I really wanted to tell them about Mozilla, but it was a taped show :(

Anyway, there is a lot of frustration out there and the Mozilla people really need to get the word out that they have a competitive product. Place some ads in the weekly magazines, some big newspapers, and get a buzz going. Open up a Paypal account that we can donate to so Mozilla can get an ad in the New York Times.

Re:Time for some advertising by bartdecrem · 2003-07-15 05:57 · Score: 5, Informative

We just launched Mozilla Marketing and a marketing mailing list. So we're going to start marketing Mozilla's products much more proactively. Please join us in this effort by joining the new marketing mailing list.

That sound you hear.. by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-15 05:48 · Score: 5, Funny

..is the "BSD is dying" guy racing to find the Search and Replace function in his text editor.

$2M kiss-off by davidflanagan · 2003-07-15 05:49 · Score: 5, Informative

The new foundation gets $2M over 2 years from AOL. Plus, Mitch Kapor kicks in $300K and becomes chair of the foundation. AOL also continues to supply infrastruture and "domain names". (How generous!)

I'd say AOL wants to be rid of Mozilla. I wonder where this leaves Netscape? Is Netscape 7.1 the last browser release from this former browser company?

Re:$2M kiss-off by Zathrus · 2003-07-15 06:30 · Score: 3, Interesting

Why would AOL give Mozilla a $2M kiss-off (assuming that were actually what is happening here) when they could give Mozilla a $0 kiss-off instead?

Someone may have been clued in enough to know that doing so would generate immense ill-will. Besides, Mozilla is a viable product... just not one well suited to AOL/TW's core business (as you say).

Additionally the $2M can be written off for tax purposes. Small, but it doesn't hurt.

I guess the real question is how much funding has AOL given the Mozilla project over the past few years? Is $1M/year an improvement or a reduction in funding? And to be totally cynical -- even if it is an improvement, remember it's only for two years. Will they be able to make up the money if AOL doesn't continue funding after that time period is up?

Honestly, I'd pretty much read this as AOL kicking the project out as well, but unless the above question is answered I can't be sure of that.

Re:the big mo by Zurk · 2003-07-15 05:49 · Score: 5, Informative

its sluggish because the event loop in mozilla which handles PREvents isnt that hot. with applets and javascript it tends to send invalid events to objects which dont exist and corrupt the stack. well known problem, no fix.
the event handling code probably needs a good overhaul. see my bug for more info :
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=211 436

particularly this comment by a sun engineer :

http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2114 36 #c19

the code in my bug can demonstrate it -- just download and run the class/html file and click ok to corrupt your event Q/stack. may crash the browser or may just hang it.

A Service You Could Offer by johnnyb · 2003-07-15 05:56 · Score: 4, Insightful

One thing that the Mozilla Foundation could do to raise money is set up a "Cobrand Support Center" where people can contract them to create and support branded versions of Mozilla.

If the price were not too high, I imagine a lot of technology companies could impress their users with a branded web browser that's better than Internet Explorer.

"As a complimentary service to our customers, we offer them the SuperTechnologyCompany Web Browser which has features that prevent spam and popups..."

--
Engineering and the Ultimate

Diogenes, here yah go!! by malia8888 · 2003-07-15 05:58 · Score: 3, Insightful

From the article: We're fortunate to start with significant seed funding, and we expect to spend the bulk of it on salaries for key staff members and technical contributors.

I liked that they said their money was going for salaries. This is refreshingly honest. Most press releases from organizations steer away from the fact that everybody needs a little $$ to survive.

This is better than trying to make us believe that first they save the whales, then go for profitability..

--
Harpo Tunnel Syndrome--my wrist feels funny.

Contributions not yet tax-deductible. by David+Hume · 2003-07-15 05:59 · Score: 5, Informative

2. Would said contribution be tax-deductible (not all non-profit donations are)?

From http://www.mozillafoundation.org/press/mozilla-fou ndation.html

The Mozilla Foundation has been incorporated as a California public benefit corporation and is seeking to obtain 501(c)(3) status as a non-profit organization.

(emphasis added). Since the Mozilla Foundation is applying for 501(c)(3) status, contributions are not yet tax deductible. Which raises the interesting question, i.e., should 501(c)(3) status be granted? In particular, should contributions by AOL to the Mozilla Foundation be tax deductible when AOL will use any work performed by the "public benefit corporation" in its Netscape product? Is this a way for a for profit corporation to fund research in a tax-deductible way?

Perhaps a counter-argument is that given the license used for Mozilla (I forget which it is; it may be important), *anyone* could use the work... but could anyone use it in for-profit software?

I haven't thought this throught, but it might be an interesting issue.

--
Only Women Bleed (Sex, Sharia remix)

Re:Contributions not yet tax-deductible. by asa · 2003-07-15 13:28 · Score: 3, Informative

V.3 is the clause under which AOL is licensing all NPLed code to the Foundation under the MPL (and it'll get tri-licensed in the fullness of time), so be glad that it's there :-)

I am glad its there. :) And I'm not trying to pick on AOL / Netscape. Just issue spotting.

Let's look at V.3:

What Gerv was saying (I think) is that AOL is using v.3 to relicence _to_ the Mozilla Foundation any reamaining NPL code under the MPL so that going forward all of Mozilla will be MPL/GPL/LGPL (no NPL) so that if AOL uses future versions of these files they will have no NPL special rights. They will be able to use code from the Mozilla Foundation under the terms of any of the MPL, GPL or LGPL.

I don't deal much with licensing issues (not nearly as much as Gerv) so I could be totally wrong but I think that's what he was trying to say.

--Asa

Not quite as funny as intended. by markv242 · 2003-07-15 06:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

This may have been modded +5 Funny, but in all honesty it's a very telling/scary story. AOL is shedding Mozilla. Yes, they've chipped in $2M to help run the foundation, but what happens in a few years when the Foundation has A) run out of money, and B) hasn't gotten any significant donations?

Let the "Mozilla is dead" postings start in 3..2..

Re:Not quite as funny as intended. by sulli · 2003-07-15 06:11 · Score: 4, Insightful

Companies making their corporate standard browser a free browser and getting a tax write-off by supporting the browser will be prevalent, I think.
Not as prevalent as companies simply using Mozilla and paying zero, however.

--

sulli
RTFJ.
Re:Not quite as funny as intended. by WPIDalamar · 2003-07-15 06:14 · Score: 4, Insightful

People may not contribute as much money to the foundation, but maybe they'll be more inclined to contribute more code. It's easy to give some IP back to a non profit, it's hard to give IP to AOL.
Re:Not quite as funny as intended. by Gerv · 2003-07-15 06:58 · Score: 3, Interesting

Not enough to employ fulltime developers, but probably enough for bandwidth costs.

The problem is, we need fulltime developers :-)

Gerv
(gerv@mozilla.org)
Re:Not quite as funny as intended. by scottj · 2003-07-15 07:33 · Score: 3, Interesting

I make charitable donations every year. I always make sure that my donations go to an organization that is registered as a non-profit so that I can realize tax benefits from my donations. Now I can support my favorite OSS project with these donations. I'm sure that there are many more out there like me as well. Mozilla isn't going to die any time soon.

--
.-.--

Well... by Kjella · 2003-07-15 06:02 · Score: 3, Insightful

I guess Mozilla's ready to actively try to knock IE down.

The technical aspects aside, I don't think the companies are in this for winning a war on Microsoft. But they do want there to be alternatives so IE can't exercise (read: abuse) monopoly power, particularly since the browser is the primary control of the Internet experience influencing all kinds of other services (searches, default bookmarks, passport integration etc.)

They're interested in supporting Mozilla to ensure it stays a viable alternative, but I hardly think they'll use more money than they have to in order to compete against a "free" product. "free" in the meaning of "at no apparent cost to Joe Sixpack" /preemtive anti-flame strike. Personally, I'll stick to Opera (ID'ing as Opera too) as my primary browser, just personal preferance.

Kjella

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings

PayPal ?? by matsh · 2003-07-15 06:05 · Score: 4, Interesting

So, where can I donate PayPal money to this foundation?

Re:PayPal ?? by Gerv · 2003-07-15 06:12 · Score: 4, Informative

So, where can I donate PayPal money to this foundation?

We'll get a PayPal (or similar) link up there as soon as possible. Don't spend the money meantime :-)

Thanks for offering to donate!

Gerv
(gerv@mozilla.org)

Moz better than Safari at the moment by sulli · 2003-07-15 06:09 · Score: 5, Informative

I use both and prefer Mozilla (better features). Safari is ooh-pretty, but Mozilla gives me better control over things, particularly via the PrefBar that one can download at XulPlanet. I love the new "Kill Flash" button.

--

sulli
RTFJ.

Re:What about Apache? by Anonymous Coward · 2003-07-15 06:15 · Score: 3, Funny

You need GNU tools to build Mozilla, so it should be called GNU/Mozilla. I've already changed my GNU/Linux GNU/Mozilla User-Agent string to reflect this.

Re:Read the article! by Gerv · 2003-07-15 06:15 · Score: 3, Insightful

As for the IP donations - that is pretty much worthless anyway since it is a free, open-source project.

Not at all. The IP donations include the mozilla.org trademark and domain name, which are very far from worthless. They also include the MPL license.

Gerv

Re: Support from Microsoft Nemeses by hendridm · 2003-07-15 06:23 · Score: 5, Insightful

From the parent:

> what happens in a few years when the Foundation has A) run out of money, and B) hasn't gotten any significant donations?

From the site:

> AOL, IBM, Sun Microsystems, Red Hat, and other companies will continue to support Mozilla through the Foundation.

I wouldn't worry. Me thinks these companies et al will stop supporting Mozilla when Internet Explorer has a user base of <5%. These are big competitors of Microsoft. Either way, if the money dries up, I would be surprised if people still didn't continue to develop Mozilla (even if it's at a slower pace).

There will always be alternatives.

Who said they get paid? by nuntius · 2003-07-15 06:26 · Score: 3, Interesting

For every $1 a employee gets paid, a company has to shell out at least $2. Where does this money go?

Employee benefits take a huge chunk out of your paycheck - health insurance and the like aren't free - the company has to pay for them. Also, every dollar you pay in taxes is matched by the company - not in some "matching program", but simply in Social Security, unemployment benefits, and other federal taxes.

Then, after all that is said and done, the company gets around to renting/buying office space, buying support hardware, software, and books, shipping developers to conventions, hiring support staff...

Re:Mozdev? by mykmelez · 2003-07-15 06:28 · Score: 4, Informative

mozdev.org is independent of mozilla.org and always has been, so they should not be affected by this announcement in any way (besides benefiting from any positive press Mozilla receives).

Note that mozdev.org has recently completed a very successful fundraising drive.

But... by Prince_Ali · 2003-07-15 06:44 · Score: 4, Insightful

Companies using Mozilla and paying zero will also not be as prevalent as companies using IE and paying zero so it is basically a wash.

--
Slashdotter are stupid and biased.

The *perfect* advertising solution by gosand · 2003-07-15 06:47 · Score: 3, Funny

Anyway, there is a lot of frustration out there and the Mozilla people really need to get the word out that they have a competitive product. Place some ads in the weekly magazines, some big newspapers, and get a buzz going.

Mozilla needs to start advertising - in popup ads. What better way to get your message across? "Hate pop-up ads like this one? Do you know there is a browser out there that allows you to block pop-up ads? It is called Mozilla, and we have a lot of other great features too. Mozilla is absolutely free! Try it out today. [url to mozilla.org]"

Yeah, it is a little like spammers sending you an email on how to stop spam, but I like the idea.

--

My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

Re:Read the article! by Gerv · 2003-07-15 06:50 · Score: 3, Informative

Watch the geeks continue to frequent it for about 23 seconds after the first pop up advertizing appears at mozilla.org.

I can assure the 2 people out there who a) read this deep into this thread, and b) actually think there's some non-zero chance of this happening, that mozilla.org will not have pop-up advertising.

Anyway, who would see it? Everyone uses Mozilla's popup blocker. ;-)

Gerv
(gerv@mozilla.org)

Re:free advertising! by asa · 2003-07-15 06:57 · Score: 4, Interesting

I've brought this up before, but where's the professional looking attractive banner ad graphics for Mozilla? I'd slap one of those up on my website (I've got pages that attract more than just slash-geeks) and get the word out that way...

I'm not so artistically minded, so I don't want to create it, but I'll certainly display it!

We will be ramping up our marketing efforts over the coming months. In the mean time you could always use plain text and link to http://www.mozilla.org/releases

--Asa

Yeah, right ... by Chromodromic · 2003-07-15 07:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

Starving, illiterate children in the world and people are going to give money to AOL-backed, Netscape-backed Mozilla which competes directly with Microsoft? The only thing brilliant about this is that Bill Gates is slapping his forehead wondering how he didn't think of making a charitable organization of Longhorn.

Firebird rules. Thunderbird rules. But they're software. I'll be giving my non-profit dollars to the local food bank, as usual.

And since non-profits are exempt from the Do Not Call list, does that mean I'll be getting phone spam from AOL?

--
Chr0m0Dr0m!C

Re:Huh? by Gerv · 2003-07-15 07:57 · Score: 3, Informative

I thought this was already how they operated. I'm guessing this is just a formality?

Very much not. Up to this point, mozilla.org was not a legal entity.

Gerv
(gerv@mozilla.org)

Re: Support from Microsoft Nemeses by 4of12 · 2003-07-15 08:04 · Score: 4, Insightful

AOL, IBM, Sun Microsystems, Red Hat,

Note that these competitors of Microsoft don't have:

US$4e10 cash reserves
revenue cows like Windows & Office to bring in money without lifting a finger

AOL has been scrambling to compete with MSN, surviving on razor-thin margins (Time Warner is the bigger, stronger part of the company).

Sun can't afford to develop competitive successors to its UltraSPARC hardware in a timely fashion. Meanwhile, Lintel servers are eating into the UNIX server business, making the market much smaller than it was once (the flip side is that Lintel make Wintel look expensive, even if Wintel is cheaper than Solaris/SPARC). These days, the one reason to go with Sun over Linux on clusters is for HA 64-way high throughput machines connected to SANs. Despite the margins on that class of machine, not everyone needs one, and there are ferocious competitors like IBM, HP and SGI with which to contend.

Red Hat is only now barely getting profitable, mainly selling Linux services. They certainly don't have oodles of money to throw around.

IBM is really the only financially strong player in the whole deck.

Despite my pessimistic tone, I'm a Mozilla (and now Firebird) user and wish the project success. I will continue to be a Mozilla advocate because I want to see open standards on my computer instead of yet another road to getting ruled.

--
"Provided by the management for your protection."

Re: Support from Microsoft Nemeses by asa · 2003-07-15 12:21 · Score: 4, Informative

[...]I would be surprised if people still didn't continue to develop Mozilla (even if it's at a slower pace).

Even slower? Molasses on a cold day comes to mind ;)

I didn't miss the wink but it still sounds like you were agreeing with the "slow" pace of development comment. I don't really think it's very slow. Even just comparing features (including support for emerging web standards) with the popular IE browser, I don't think our development pace is slow.

But beyond just new features, if you look at the actual code change (about 80,000 lines changed in the last year) and the bugs fixed (about 9,000 bugzilla records resolved as fixed in the last year,) it's seems wrong to call that slow.

I think we've been moving at a pretty good clip this last year with the addition of great new features like junk-mail controls, NTLM auth, find as you type, link pre-fetching, download manager, major improvements to usability of killer features like pop-up blocking, and tabbed browsing, much improved look and feel, more complete support for web standards, much better website compatibility and big gains in performance.

If you don't think much has changed or that we're moving too slow, then go download Mozilla 1.0 (from about a year ago) and use it side by side with the latest release, Mozilla 1.4. Compare that to the improvements that Microsoft has made in the last year.

--Asa

Re: Support from Microsoft Nemeses by Azureflare · 2003-07-15 13:04 · Score: 4, Interesting

One thing that really surprises me (And I mean REALLY surprises me) is the fact that AOL Time Warner doesn't tout Mozilla more. I mean, if people knew that Firebird had excellent popup blocking and other features IE should have, people would switch in an instant! I moved my whole family over to Firebird, and they love it, even though it's still 0.6! They love the simplicity, and they especially love the popup blocking. They don't use Internet Explorer at all anymore, and I think this will continue, especially since Microsoft is going to wait until Longhorn for the next IE upgrade.

That's another thing; there are many issues with IE, as has been noted by many people (CSS, transparent .png, etc. etc.) not to mention popups. I just can't see why people would choose IE if they knew what firebird offered.

I can't help wondering, if people just got the word out, more people would use mozilla, and thereby mozilla would get more money in it's coffers. If mozilla can get a relatively large user base (Say, 10-20%) then I would hope they wouldn't have a problem getting funds.

59 of 493 comments (clear)