Slashdot Mirror
Google-branded Firefox?
arpy writes "An article on Mozillanews.org is reporting on Google's registration of the domain GBrowser.com (nothing to look at there yet). The article provides a summary of rumours that Google will release a branded version of Mozilla Firefox (along with some interesting speculation)."
Could the hirings of the browser people be just to integrate desktop search better with current existing browers? That does sound more likely to me.
I'd like to see them build official extensions to the Mozilla platform, rather than rebrand Firefox.
Give the consumers more choice!
OK, this story is pure speculation.
But if it turns out to be real, will they be able to gain a significant market share? Against IE and the rising Mozilla-based FireFox? To me, it seems that IE get all the non-techy people love, and Firefox gets the geeks... They better implement some VERY nice features, because the Google name alone won't make me switch for sure. And I LOVE Google.
Eureka Science News - automatically updated
Slightly condensed version of the article summary: "An article on Mozillanews.org is reporting on [old news]. The article provides [rumours] along with [speculation]."
Way to go!
Switch back to Slashdot's D1 system.
Actually, you have a great idea there. What's Linux's major drawback? The perception that you can't just insert a CD, and it'll install itself perfectly. Or that it's too difficult to do if you don't know everything to know about Linux. If Google were to produce a Linux distro, that distro would have the weight of Google's name, plus anything that came bundled with the would *likely* work properly (less flaws, more filling) as they do have decent coders who know their stuff, and they have the capability to create a desktop environment with search, email, blogging (and more) right at your fingertips. Add to the fact that Google seems to be a) Less Evil Than The Other Guys(TM) and b) willing to take a steady-as-she-goes approach. We'd end up with an OS that wasn't half assed, chock full of coding holes nor equipped with stuff we couldn't uninstall (ie. IE!). Go Google!
Julie Moult is an idiot.
At first I thought to myself "What's the point?" but upon reading the article, I saw a few valid ideas for such a product.
My main concern about this lies in whether or not Google's rebranded Firefox will essentially steal the Firefox project away from Mozilla. Ultimately, Google has far more popular support as a whole than Mozilla, and is well known by an audience consisting not of just computer geeks, but my IE-wielding doofus customers. I think even if the Google browser were 100% identical to Firefox, it would in the end be more successful simply because of the brand recognition.
When we look at the "browser wars" right now, our two distinct groups are IE and Firefox (and Opera, etc etc..), but division among the ranks of open source soldiers is the worst thing that could happen to us. If Google's rendition of Firefox becomes more successful than Firefox, they will in the end seize some level of control over the whole Mozilla project. If they were to do so, well.. They'd be a bunch of jerks.
IMO the best way Google could go about such a project would be to implement their new additions to the Firefox browser via XUL, with minimal changes to the core browser itself. If they leave the Firefox browser as the property of the Mozila project, they don't step on any toes, and XUL is still flexible enough that they can make all the toys they'd like. Furthermore, even if they distribute their own Google Browser Package which is essentially Firefox with the Google XUL Extensions, it would still capture their market while remaining "friends" of the open source community. I don't think I'd install a Google browser myself, but I'd consider a couple of Google extensions on Firefox.
This again ties back to a previous article about the role of XUL. Cross platform workplaces are becoming more and more common these days, and an XUL oriented work platform could certainly alleviate a lot of the stress. Imagine plugging in your PDA/Cell phone, and bing, it synchronizes with a Firefox extension, the same as you use at home, at work, etc. Or even if you used XUL extensions for instant messaging, saving synchronizing files between home and work (Gmail file system extension anybody?), basic office work.. Ultimately if Firefox wants to take a major stab at IE's market, they're going to need some clever tricks to get people to rely on it, and if you ask me, getting people to rely on the XUL platform is it.
Heh, that's a bit of a FUD.
If that were true, we'd be seeing daily accounts of Apache servers being hacked and used for malicious purposes. According to Netcraft, Apache is used by almost 70% of the webservers out there. Yet Microsofts IIS is on 20% of the webservers out there, and there have been way, way more malicious attacks on it. So being bigger does not necessarily mean being the bigger target.
IE gets more attacks because it is poorly coded, and you see less attacks on Firefox because it is coded better than IE. If it were to be come more popular, I don't foresee a huge jump in attacks.
Julie Moult is an idiot.