Slashdot Mirror


NYT Firefox Campaign Raises $250,000

ScytheBlade1 writes "The Firefox full-page NYT ad campaign finished off today with an impressive $250,000 over 10 days. Impressive to say the least, and it goes to show just how much momentum Firefox has."

384 comments

  1. Congrats Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    And congrats and not being vulnerable to the latest IT URL spoofing flaw. That one's so easy even a kid can do it.

    1. Re:Congrats Firefox by PhrostyMcByte · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You can spoof the URL using onmouseover in any browser, what is the big deal?

    2. Re:Congrats Firefox by antifoidulus · · Score: 2, Informative

      Oddly enough(ok so I'm bored), in the ancient Mac version of IE, that exploit doesn't work.....

    3. Re:Congrats Firefox by shish · · Score: 4, Informative
      You can spoof the URL using onmouseover in any browser, what is the big deal?

      This doesn't use onmouseover; it still works with scripting turned off entirely

      --
      I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
    4. Re:Congrats Firefox by Jugalator · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      And congrats and not being vulnerable to the latest IT URL spoofing flaw. That one's so easy even a kid can do it.

      Doesn't work in my IE 6 under Windows XP SP2.

      The address bar says "http://www.google.com/" just like Firefox.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    5. Re:Congrats Firefox by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      Ah, later down in the article it says it only affects XP that hasn't installed SP2... Yet another reason to do that, I suppose. :-P You're crazy if you haven't (and even if you have you're still using a huge hacker target to an OS). If you can't for some reason, you should use a different OS.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    6. Re:Congrats Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It does however trick Safari under OSX too.

    7. Re:Congrats Firefox by slaad · · Score: 1

      Doesn't work in my IE 6 under Windows XP SP2

      I was disappointed to see this myself... I wanted to see how cool it would be to go to a different site than it says...damn me for keeping my system patched!


      (After that, I noticed that the original link mentions that IE SP2 is safe)

      --


      ~Warning!~ The above is encrypted using rot676!
    8. Re:Congrats Firefox by geggibus · · Score: 1

      It actually does.. though it doesn't fool Konqueror.

    9. Re:Congrats Firefox by pe1chl · · Score: 1

      It does not work in other versions either.

      This bug only means you see http://www.microsoft.com/ in the status bar while hovering over that link, but as soon as you click it the address bar will show the real location you are visiting.

      So it is useless for phishing. It is just a bug, not a security problem.

    10. Re:Congrats Firefox by NtroP · · Score: 1, Offtopic
      Sonofabitch. I just checked the Netcraft report out in Safari and the spoof worked!

      I can't find anyone mentioning it anywhere. What's the best procedure to report this?

      --
      "terrorism" and "pedophilia" are the root passwords to the Constitution
    11. Re:Congrats Firefox by jp10558 · · Score: 1

      Why? What does SP2 offer me? I already have AV. I already run a firewall (non MS). I already run Spybot S&D, AdAware SE. I don't use IE, I use Opera. I don't use OE, I use Eudora. I don't use MSN Messenger, I use Trillian.

      So what is SP2 going to give me except likely headaches?

      --
      Opera, Proxomitron-Grypen,GPG 0x0A1C6EE3
    12. Re:Congrats Firefox by ajs · · Score: 1

      Shocking, since Safari is based on the same code as Konqueror and I just checked out Konq, which is not vulnerable.

      I was actually kind of shocked how many Web browsers I have at my disposal when I went to look. There's: links, lynx, w3c, Konq, Mozilla (and the Mozilla-based Forefox, Galeon, Epiphany), and Nautilus. Nice to have options ;-)

    13. Re:Congrats Firefox by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      SP2 doesn't have an AV program, it just checks to see if yours is working right.

      SP2 does have more sane wireless (I've seen the WiFi, and I've heard BT is a LOT better)

      Also, if you have a Tablet PC, you'll be upgraded to Tablet PC 2004.

    14. Re:Congrats Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. I hate all this stuff about people creating XUL interfaces to mimic the UI of firefox. What the hell is to stop me from writing an IE look alike with frames (to hold the (spoofed) web page) and dhtml?

      The very fact that Firefox is open means that eventually it will become very very secure even if its not 100% there yet. Microsoft have a problem because the better a project is the faster it gets better; the complete opposite can be noted in MSs products.

    15. Re:Congrats Firefox by Tribbin · · Score: 1

      >> That one's so easy even a kid can do it.

      Hey, don't denigrate! Kids can do many things you cant!

      Like crawling through tiny holes. Watching the same cartoon over and over again without getting bored. And ofcourse hoola-hooping.

      --
      If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
    16. Re:Congrats Firefox by Magnus+Reftel · · Score: 1

      Press "Report Bugs to Apple..." under the Safari menu.

      --
      print "Yet another p{erl,ython} hacker\n",
    17. Re:Congrats Firefox by GFLPraxis · · Score: 1

      "That one's so easy even a kid can do it."

      Actually, that's true. I've seen a kid use this exploit. *snicker*

    18. Re:Congrats Firefox by cagliost · · Score: 2, Informative

      You can spoof the URL using onmouseover in any browser, what is the big deal? Not true - in Firefox, you can disallow scripts access to the status bar.

    19. Re:Congrats Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This "spoof" doesnt work for me. Windows XP and IE 6. I see google in the status bar and thats where it sends me.

    20. Re:Congrats Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it does not work for me using the latest IE javascript enabled, active(x/script) disabled

      the status bar shows the correct target

    21. Re:Congrats Firefox by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      But even in vulnerable browsers, once you click on the link the true address is shown in the address bar. Doesn't strike me as being very effective - who checks the status bar (which is often changed with js onmouseover event handlers) but not the address bar?

    22. Re:Congrats Firefox by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      However, could somebody tell me how they're planning on fitting 10,000 names on a single newspaper page, with each name displayed "in a readable font size"?

    23. Re:Congrats Firefox by Acous · · Score: 1

      using xul is a slightly nicer exploit because it grabs (or could grab) the OS's skin etc instead of having to know what skin they're using and emulate that.

      There may be a way to do this using IE, I don't know.

    24. Re:Congrats Firefox by qbwiz · · Score: 1

      That is because Mac IE and Windows IE are very different, using AFAIK different rendering engines and things like that. From what I've heard, the Mac version was more standards-compliant. I don't know why they bothered to do two versions, though.

      --
      Ewige Blumenkraft.
    25. Re:Congrats Firefox by nacturation · · Score: 1

      So what is SP2 going to give me except likely headaches?

      Well, probably about the same as upgrading to the Linux 2.6 kernel. Unless you really need the features it offers over 2.4, why bother? That said, I was hesitant to install SP2 and eventually bit the bullet. I haven't yet had any problems with any software, and the new features in IE make it worthwhile to use again.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    26. Re:Congrats Firefox by kai.chan · · Score: 1

      I went to that link to how easy it was to exploit the flaw, I moused-over the www.microsoft.com link, and noticed that www.google.com was displayed on my status bar. I was like, "WTF? How is this a flaw when I can do that in HTML?!" Then I realized that I was using Firefox. I'm so fast.

    27. Re:Congrats Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >the status bar shows the correct target

      We're not talking about the status bar at the bottom here, but the actual address bar at the top.

  2. This is fantastic news. by isolationism · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not that New York is the only place on earth I'd want to advertise FireFox; I've been signing it from the mountaintops for months now and haven't looked back. Are there any further marketing plans by the Mozilla group to spread the good word? Aside: I'm a little disappointed in myself for not having remembered to contribute. Oops. Guess it's T-Shirt time ...

    1. Re:This is fantastic news. by revery · · Score: 4, Funny

      I've been signing it from the mountaintops for months now and haven't looked back.

      Julie Andrews uses Firefox?!?!

      --

      How do you solve a problem like Mozilla?

    2. Re:This is fantastic news. by slaad · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not that New York is the only place on earth I'd want to advertise FireFox

      The NY Times sees national distribution. It's one of the most read papers in the country. I know that someplace on spreadfirefox.com there is a faq that explains this and also mentions that they they may advertise in other areas (ie europe) in the future as well, and I'd love to link to it but it seems to have been hit by the slashdot effect already... :) And you're right, you can still contribute. They probably raised a lot more money than they need for the advertisement here. The extra just goes to helping out in other areas. You can always donate straight money, or like you said, buy a shirt. You can also contribute by spreading the word about firefox, posting flyers, and of course by using it.

      --


      ~Warning!~ The above is encrypted using rot676!
    3. Re:This is fantastic news. by 3770 · · Score: 1


      I think the point is that they aren't necessarily aiming only for NY.

      They are doing this in a way that it might be picked up by other mainstream media as news about what is happening in New York.

      Take this thread for instance. It is of course preaching to the choir, but the actual news article could have been carried by CNN.

      --
      The Internet is full. Go Away!!!
    4. Re:This is fantastic news. by Sentry21 · · Score: 1

      I think the Globe and Mail and the Nominal Pest would go far for spreading it in Canada. Perhaps the Guardian in the UK would be a good option as well.

      --Dan

    5. Re:This is fantastic news. by isolationism · · Score: 1
      That's what I was thinking -- I don't read the NY Times (although I appreciate that it is well-read around the globe, thanks for reinforcing that understanding everyone) however I do read the Globe & Mail every day.

      The Guardian and the BBC website are also another couple chiefly British but also well-read resources I would probably personally sooner see the ad on than the NY Times (as I never read it online or off).

    6. Re:This is fantastic news. by DigitalRaptor · · Score: 1

      No, Julie Andrews would be singing it from the mountaintops.

      This chap is signing from the mountaintops.

      Not sure which is better...

      --
      Lose Weight and Feel Great with Isagenix
    7. Re:This is fantastic news. by WCityMike · · Score: 1
      I've been signing it from the mountaintops for months now and haven't looked back.

      How do you say Firefox in ASL? And can people really see your hands from so high up?

    8. Re:This is fantastic news. by IANAAC · · Score: 1
      Julie Andrews uses Firefox?!?!

      A mute Julie Andrews.

    9. Re:This is fantastic news. by Ford+Prefect · · Score: 1

      This chap is signing from the mountaintops.

      Like this?

      --
      Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
    10. Re:This is fantastic news. by h4rm0ny · · Score: 1


      Nonono! Do The Independent. It's by far the best quality UK newspaper and thus read by intelligent and progressive people who might notice the ad and install Firefox.

      The Daily Mail has huge circulation though and would reach a big audience. Regardless, if they repeat this with a UK newspaper, then I'm donating. I would even have donated to this if I'd noticed it before it closed.

      Mozzie people reading this - please organize one for the UK!

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
    11. Re:This is fantastic news. by PeterPumpkin · · Score: 1

      The campaign is "over", but they are still soliciting donations for name slots on the ad. Its not too late!

    12. Re:This is fantastic news. by Stuart+Gibson · · Score: 1

      Oh god, I spend too much time on IRC, I was wondering why you were asking how to say Firefox in Age/Sex/Location :(

      Of course, being in the UK, ASL probably doesn't have such a strong connection to sign language.

      Stuart

      --
      It's all fun and games until a 200' robot dinosaur shows up and trashes Neo-Tokyo... Again
    13. Re:This is fantastic news. by trewornan · · Score: 1

      The Independent. It's by far the dullest UK newspaper

    14. Re:This is fantastic news. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      "I've been signing it from the mountaintops for months now and haven't looked back."

      "Julie Andrews uses Firefox?!?!"

      Didn't you mean Marlee Matlin?
  3. But the NYT site uses popups! by turnstyle · · Score: 4, Funny

    But the NYT site uses popups! Won't Firefox block 'em? ;)

    --
    Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
    1. Re:But the NYT site uses popups! by Analog+Anomaly · · Score: 0

      What popups? I've been using firefox for some time. I haven't seen ANY popups on the firefox site. :)

    2. Re:But the NYT site uses popups! by shish · · Score: 4, Funny
      Popups in a dead-tree edition of a newspaper?

      (Why do I get the feeling we shouldn't be giving advertisers ideas like this?)

      --
      I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
    3. Re:But the NYT site uses popups! by strider44 · · Score: 1

      it's the "popup boobies" fark edition of the NYT.

    4. Re:But the NYT site uses popups! by r2q2 · · Score: 1

      Yes its possible. They use a paper based spring, very annoying. You can use a knife to block those popups though.

      --
      My UID is prime is yours?
    5. Re:But the NYT site uses popups! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see a great pop-up ad:

      "This very invasive pop-up ad was brought to you because you are not using Firefox. If you would, you would be able block such a crap like this!"

    6. Re:But the NYT site uses popups! by mike260 · · Score: 1

      I find newspaper fall-outs considerably more annoying that pop-ups - you can't just click on them and make them go away, or wear non-microsoft glasses that make them invisible.

      SNAP! (the sound of an analogy stretched past breaking point)

  4. Other side of coin. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ""The Firefox full-page NYT ad campaign finished off today with an impressive $250,000 over 10 days. Impressive to say the least, and it goes to show just how much momentum Firefox has.""

    Or just how badly we want to get rid of IE.

    1. Re:Other side of coin. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What major features other than tabbed browsing does firefox really have over IE? I've been using mozilla and the KDE browser a lot and love the tabbed browsing. I've been playing with firefox and think it's okay. mozilla has other browsing features that aren't in firefox and as a result, I'm probably going to go back to mozilla. While I have linux on a bunch of my machines, windows is my default desktop and when IE comes out with tabbed browsing, I'm not really sure why I'd not want to use it. It definitly integrates better with the OS than firefox. I despise MS, but I'm not going to hinder myself by not using their stuff when it works well.

    2. Re:Other side of coin. by DogDude · · Score: 1

      ""The Firefox full-page NYT ad campaign finished off today with an impressive $250,000 over 10 days. Impressive to say the least, and it goes to show just how much momentum Firefox has.""

      Or just how badly we want to get rid of IE.


      Or how much extra money that geeks in NYC have lying around.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    3. Re:Other side of coin. by fafaforza · · Score: 1

      If they're not hanging out in the Apple store in SoHo buying iPods and iBooks, they contribute to Mozilla.

    4. Re:Other side of coin. by davegaramond · · Score: 1

      Agreed. I can't wait the day IE is like 50%, Windows is 50-60% and open source is the rest. I'm sick of being minority and the "standards" being driven by Microsoft.

    5. Re:Other side of coin. by davegaramond · · Score: 1

      Over IE? Security, security, security.

      Over Mozilla on Windows? Simplicity and IE-like appearance.

      Over Konqueror? Wake me up when Konqueror/KDE is "ready for Windows".

      Personally I use Opera. But the nearest thing today that can replace IE for most people is Firefox.

    6. Re:Other side of coin. by el-spectre · · Score: 1

      Security, standards compliance and a boatload of really useful extensions.

      --
      "Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
    7. Re:Other side of coin. by strider44 · · Score: 1

      If Windows gets down to 50-60% then linux would just have so much momentum Windows usage would collapse probably down to 10-15% in less than a month. There'd be absolutely no incentive for people not to upgrade since it costs nothing. However let's just wait and see what happens - that may be a long time away or may never happen.

    8. Re:Other side of coin. by strider44 · · Score: 1

      what's different from using kde on windows instead of kde on linux? They're pretty much the same, except you get a huge amount of extra programs and features of linux.

      Anyways I hope KDE and Gnome never get ported to Windows. It'd lose a lot of what little advantage linux has over Windows.

    9. Re:Other side of coin. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because it costs nothing doesn't mean it's a reason to upgrade. Maybe people don't change from what's working for them. This is even evident in *nix shops (how many sites are still running Apache 1.3.x for example).

    10. Re:Other side of coin. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If i gave 25$ to FireFox I should also give: 30$ to linux kernel, gcc, the X.org the apache, KDE/gnome, etc. And 10$ to other projects like elinks, etc.
      So I'm not giving a dime because it's not fair for the others.

      I don't care if it's money for advertisement, pizza or ferrari.

    11. Re:Other side of coin. by strider44 · · Score: 1

      no I'm talking about if one in two people use it, then their friends will start using it as well since it's free. Remember that we're not talking about Apache here.

      However this may well be a ficticious scenario.

    12. Re:Other side of coin. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apache is an example, and has nothing to do with code quality. This is a comment on the complacency of human beings. Hell, most people only have Windows became it installed that way. They don't know how to install Windows, and thus won't be installing Linux themselves -- especially if there's no reason for them to do so (think from a user's point of view, and not an advocates -- most users are happy with their Win2K and WinXP installs).

  5. Hehe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    An individual contribution of $30 will get your name included in the ad ($10 student rate).

    The problem with $250,000 is that the ad might be 99% names, and 1% content.

    1. Re:Hehe by Sweetshark · · Score: 1

      The ones you want to reach with the message dont care about content. Those who care about facts already have them. Ads are for the ones who dont really care too much about facts ...

    2. Re:Hehe by De+Lemming · · Score: 3, Informative

      From the FAQ:

      How many names will fit in the ad?

      A single full-length column of a newspaper has a few thousand words. Rest assured, we've done our homework. We will be able to accommodate several thousand names in a readable font size and still provide a very attractive and compelling advertisement. We have already mocked up some designs, and we will solicit input from the community about them in the coming weeks.

  6. Another related article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    On the guy that came up with the idea, Rob Davis.

  7. FeedTheLizard.com by exnuke · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Anyone interest in a similar campaign for Mozilla? I'll donate FeedTheLizard.com and FeedTheLizard.org to the cause.

    1. Re:FeedTheLizard.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll donate FeedTheLizard.com and FeedTheLizard.org to the cause.

      Your porn startup not working out?

    2. Re:FeedTheLizard.com by exnuke · · Score: 1

      Yeah. After you cancelled your membership, I couldn't afford to keep the doors open. ; )

    3. Re:FeedTheLizard.com by invisik · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They don't seem to care about Mozilla anymore, for some reason. It's not set to be phased out, that I know of. I went to their site to download some web advertisment buttons and all they had is FireFox Now!--no Mozilla related ones. So I e-mailed them and said I have trouble recommending FireFox at this point because it's not release quality and people I konw need the whole suite, so do they have a Mozilla button? They said no, and hoped I could recommend FireFox when it goes 1.0.

      I realize they are building (or re-building) the calendar and e-mail clients seperately, but they have a completely production-worthy product right now that they don't seem to care much for.

      I just don't get it.

      -m

      --
      http://www.invisik.com
    4. Re:FeedTheLizard.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Finally someone says exactly what I am thinking. I installed firefox and within an hour uninstalled it. I installed the mozilla 1.7 suite and it sucked up my netscape 6 mail account and I've never turned back. I feel the ui layout is just better. Preferences for Popup blocker, cookie manager, password manager, tabs are all just easier to use. I also like the google search being integrated into the url edit box as opposed to a separate edit box.

    5. Re:FeedTheLizard.com by el-spectre · · Score: 2, Informative

      Mozilla _IS_ set to ba phased out, by Firefox, Thunderbird, etc.

      The original plan was for Phoenix (at the time) to be an internal/testing name, with the gold product being called Mozilla 2. Firefox has good press now, so they're sticking with the name.

      --
      "Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
    6. Re:FeedTheLizard.com by jonbryce · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In terms of branding, Firefox is a much stronger name than Mozilla.

      I've heard lots of non-techy people say that they have heard of this thing called Firefox. Some of them have even tried it, and are pretty impressed with what they saw.

      Mention Mozilla to these same people, and they won't know what you are talking about.

      There may even be a case for putting Thunderbird, Sunbird and Nvu under the Firefox brand.

    7. Re:FeedTheLizard.com by Arctech · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My understanding is they're pushing Firefox/Thunderbird (and perhaps Sunbird eventually) because they want to move away from the complex all-in-one swiss-army knife of a browser. Firefox's UI is much more simple and streamlined than Mozilla's, so it's naturally going to be the horse they're going to back when they advertise to Joe User. The separate application approach also makes more sense in terms of development and debugging. When you have 5 different applications under one roof and bugs start cropping up, weeding problems out becomes a much more complex task.

      Now from what I understand, the Mozilla suite won't be entirely phased out. if you look at the roadmap it states they will continue to update and support the Mozilla browser suite (codenamed Seamonkey). They understand they still have Mozilla customers, and they're not going to leave them out in the cold.

      But in terms of attracting and maintaining a new mainstream userbase, they know Firefox is a better solution in the long run.

  8. Seems a shame to waste it on a newspaper ad by smartin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That kind of money could be better used to finance developement.

    --
    The difference between Canada and the USA is that in Canada healthcare is a right and gun ownership is a privilege.
    1. Re:Seems a shame to waste it on a newspaper ad by Poltras · · Score: 5, Funny
      That kind of money could be better used to finance developement.

      You're a developper, admit it.

    2. Re:Seems a shame to waste it on a newspaper ad by bogie · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What good is all the development money in the world if nobody ever hears about your product? Or to put it another way, ask Microsoft which is more important. Designing a good product or marketing?

      --
      If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
    3. Re:Seems a shame to waste it on a newspaper ad by Southpaw018 · · Score: 3, Informative

      It says in the redherring article referenced from SFX that the ad will be just under $50k. The rest will go straight back to Moz. Go Firefox!

      --
      ACs are modded -6. I don't read you, I don't mod you, I don't see you. Don't like it? Don't be a coward.
    4. Re:Seems a shame to waste it on a newspaper ad by smartin · · Score: 1

      Absolutely :)

      --
      The difference between Canada and the USA is that in Canada healthcare is a right and gun ownership is a privilege.
    5. Re:Seems a shame to waste it on a newspaper ad by smoking2000 · · Score: 5, Informative

      That kind of money could be better used to finance developement.

      They will, according to the interview with Rob Davis at redherring.com:

      To date, close to 10,000 people have funneled almost $250,000 through Mr. Davis' campaign into the Mozilla Foundation, the Mountain View, California, non-profit organization that is developing Firefox.

      The ad will cost just under $50,000, and the left-over cash will be plowed back into the Mozilla Foundation.

    6. Re:Seems a shame to waste it on a newspaper ad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      This is a good way to spend the money. Mozilla, and open source in general fail at the very first purpose of marketing: awareness. Most of the the people that could use them do not know Mozilla and Firefox even exist. If people have never even heard of your product, then obviously they won't consider using it.

    7. Re:Seems a shame to waste it on a newspaper ad by KAMiKAZOW · · Score: 1

      Designing a good product is more important. IE already lost market share to Mozilla (Firefox) without that stupid ad.
      Mouth-to-mouth propaganda is the best ad.

    8. Re:Seems a shame to waste it on a newspaper ad by HoneyBunchesOfGoats · · Score: 1

      That's probably a bad example, since we're pretty unhappy about the results of the Microsoft way of doing things.

    9. Re:Seems a shame to waste it on a newspaper ad by KAMiKAZOW · · Score: 1

      It still means that $50k are wasted.
      Maybe Spreadfirefox will notice that there are also other countries in the world. Will the left $200k spend there?

      IMO when Mozilla.org has the money, it should be spend in development to make the Mozilla apps better products.

    10. Re:Seems a shame to waste it on a newspaper ad by mrchaotica · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ok, so ask Be, Inc. or NeXT about marketing then!

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    11. Re:Seems a shame to waste it on a newspaper ad by Paster+Of+Muppets · · Score: 1
      Wow, with $200K they could really go to town...

      Let's see... With a IE 6.0 resource kit at $39.27 and the book "IE For Dummies" on offer at $15.39, they could get 3658 copies of each, then have enough ($53.72) left over to get a few drinks in for a job well done.

      --
      Due to lack of disk space this user has been discontinued
    12. Re:Seems a shame to waste it on a newspaper ad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I choose c. Monopoly Status

    13. Re:Seems a shame to waste it on a newspaper ad by rseuhs · · Score: 1
      Because of network effects, development isn't the only thing needed to make a browser great.

      IE-only sites are getting rarer and rarer, and with advertisments like these, they will dissappear completely. - Which will mean a better browser experience for ALL Firefox users.

    14. Re:Seems a shame to waste it on a newspaper ad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Suddenly the reason why Gecko based browsers seem to have a lot more bugs with layouting and such than Opera is made abundantly clear :/

      I'm a web developer who sticks religiously to standards; 90% of my bug workaround comments are split fairly evenly between /* IE doesn't support $x */ and /* Gecko breaks this horribly */ :(

    15. Re:Seems a shame to waste it on a newspaper ad by colmore · · Score: 1

      Sigh, RTFA

      you too, mods...

      --
      In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
    16. Re:Seems a shame to waste it on a newspaper ad by SilentBob4 · · Score: 1

      Mad Penguin basically said the same thing in this article, and it's true.

      Here's a small clip from the article:
      "The simple fact is that not enough people really know about Firefox, and this advertising campaign is one of the best ideas I've seen come out of the Open Source community in quite some time. We all know that no matter how compelling our software may be, the majority of the world's population doesn't even know it exists. It's not from lack of effort on our behalf, either. We spend much of our time promoting free software, as I'm sure most of you reading this do, but the one thing we lack is real visibility. We can eat, sleep, and sweat Firefox, but in reality, we are up against a large company with tons of money being dumped into their image... a very difficult proposition wouldn't you say? If you look at it for what it is, you'll see it for what it is. When a company can produce software which crashes constantly, allows strangers to steal personal information with little to no real effort, and then to top it off with the 'we'll patch it when we get around to it' attitude and it still controls 95+% of the market, anything less than a miracle is going to crumble from the weight. It's an odd thing isn't it? The fact is that Internet Explorer is harmful to the people who use it. But the truth is, people don't really pay attention to the facts. If they did, that 95+% of the world would all be running OS X right now wouldn't they?"

    17. Re:Seems a shame to waste it on a newspaper ad by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 1

      Depends on your target market.

      About 10% of people buy based primarily on the quality of the product or design. Slashdot tries to appeal to this type of person.

      The rest buy based on either

      2. popularity and marketing,
      3. results ( I need X, this does X)
      or
      4. Personal relationships. i.e. a good friend uses it...

      In one-on-one selling situations, figuring out how a person makes their decisions can be crucial to building rapport.

      If you want to get the most market share, go for marketing. If you want to sell to executives, go for results. But if you want to reach the techies, target to that 10%.

      --

      ___
      It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
    18. Re:Seems a shame to waste it on a newspaper ad by roj3 · · Score: 1
      FTFM

      the ad is less than $50,000

    19. Re:Seems a shame to waste it on a newspaper ad by roj3 · · Score: 1
      actually no, it means that it cost $50K to RAISE $250K.

      Only a tiny percentage of people contribute money spontaneously - the rest need more motivation.

      The people supported this idea with their dollars, if they agreed with you, they wouldn't have funded it.

    20. Re:Seems a shame to waste it on a newspaper ad by Shokac · · Score: 1
      That kind of money could be better used to finance developement.
      You're a developper, admit it.
      No, er, he is a guy who knows a girl, whos next neighbour once saw developper guy in a newspaper, and his grandmother's cat........ you know
    21. Re:Seems a shame to waste it on a newspaper ad by legirons · · Score: 1

      "It says in the redherring article referenced from SFX that the ad will be just under $50k."

      So why not advertise in 5 papers? In the spreadmozilla discussions, the favourite second-choice seems to be the Metro (free paper distributed in rail stations?, widely read by young people)

      "Countrywide" may be a nice term for the NYTimes to bandy around to advertisers, but Mozilla is bigger than that.

    22. Re:Seems a shame to waste it on a newspaper ad by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Developers, developers, developers, developers! Developers, developers, developers, developers! Developers, developers, developers, developers!

      Seriously though, a related article said the cost of the ad is $50,000. The rest of the money will be funneled back into the Mozilla organization.

    23. Re:Seems a shame to waste it on a newspaper ad by Bryan-10021 · · Score: 1

      That kind of money could be better used to finance developement.

      More than $200,000 is going to finance development. The ad is than $50,000.

    24. Re:Seems a shame to waste it on a newspaper ad by KAMiKAZOW · · Score: 1

      This comparison is foolish. Mozilla.org is not a company. Mozilla.org an organisation to make good web apps, not to sell them. Thus they don't need to post ads.
      BeOS also did never get any market share away from Windows. Mozilla and Firefox OTOH already took away IE users and this tred continiues - even without the ad.
      A single ad in the NYT probably won't chande anything. It's not a full fledged ad campaign.

    25. Re:Seems a shame to waste it on a newspaper ad by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure, but I think Mozill.org actually is a corporation, albeit a non-profit one. But, that's irrelevant: Be and NeXT wanted more people to use their software; Mozilla.org wants more people to use their software. After all, charities (e.g. Christian Children's Fund) advertize, even though there's no profit in it for them.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    26. Re:Seems a shame to waste it on a newspaper ad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a developper, admit it.

      You're a developer too, aren't you? ;)

    27. Re:Seems a shame to waste it on a newspaper ad by Poltras · · Score: 1

      Yes I put ps everywhere because I want to keep my members private... :)

    28. Re:Seems a shame to waste it on a newspaper ad by j-pimp · · Score: 1

      If you want to get the most market share, go for marketing. If you want to sell to executives, go for results. But if you want to reach the techies, target to that 10%.

      How about all three? We have the techies. This add will help give us the masses. The executives are a trickier situation.

      Advertising is releatively new to the open source world. However, we have the rexources to do it. Tere is enough corporate acceptance of linux where we can access all the marketing channeling if we come up with the money. IBM has put alot of marketing effort into linux. These grassroots efforts to take out ads in the NYT will be very successful as long as we carefully pick our battles. Taing aim at IE at this point is a good idea. However, takimg on excel would be a bad idea.

      Selling to executives is harder though. Creating a product that does X is simple. Many of you are saying, "Hey aren't unix programs suppose to do one thing and one thing well and accept text input and spew out text output?" Well yess they are spposed, and yes they do. However, the problem with selling to executives is figuring out exactly what it is they want there product to do. They don't want ACLs or stored procedures or faster reboot time. They want flexible security policies, the ability to integrate there database and middleware and 5 9's up uptime. They look for results and we geeks look at the how. A geek may say that clustering is jsut admiting your software is unstable and makes up for it by having your wagon pulled by a thpusand squirrels. A manager might think its cheaper to feed a thousand horses than a horse. I'me being overly simplistic and my examples are flawed but the pointis if were going to sell to executives, we need to be able to determine what they feel there needs are. That probalyl means focus groups. Yes thats right, were going to have to round up a bunch of PHBs, ask them a bunch of questions and analize the results. Were also going to have to pay attention to the results. I'm not saying we abandon our principles and make bad softwae, just make good quality software that does what the PHBs want.

      --
      --- Justin Dearing http://www.justaprogrammer.net/ We're just programmers.
    29. Re:Seems a shame to waste it on a newspaper ad by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 1

      From what I've seen, OSS should have an 'Enterprise Level Version.' It'll cost $10,000 or higher and will offer support and updates and be targeted for business use. And it has to be able to put on a damn attractive presentation, using feel-good concepts like "modularizable components" and "user friendly menus" etc. Tools for distance learning and video conferenceing would be good. eLearning tools would be great. (anyone know of OSS eLearning tools or LMSes?)

      I've only known a few OSS producers who have done somthing as simple as package programs for easy install and configuration sufficient for non-techs could demo them. Netscape products seem to be an exception, and netscape rates a lot higher on my usability scale than programs like 'the gimp.'

      --

      ___
      It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
    30. Re:Seems a shame to waste it on a newspaper ad by j-pimp · · Score: 1

      Netscape products seem to be an exception, and netscape rates a lot higher on my usability scale than programs like 'the gimp.'
      All image editing software more complex than paint it by nature non intuitive and complex. I got to the point where I auctually like gimp now. My knowledge of photography and other things that fall in the real of art school students is limited so I can't comment how wee Gimp compares to photoshop funactionality wise, but after usign both I consider both different but of about equal usability.

      --
      --- Justin Dearing http://www.justaprogrammer.net/ We're just programmers.
    31. Re:Seems a shame to waste it on a newspaper ad by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 1

      I never had problem with the Gimp on a technical level. The toolbars kept falling behind the main stage. Big usability failure, and it wasn't the only one. Just the only one I remember. Maybe it's better now. I haven't tried it in a long time.

      --

      ___
      It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
  9. Whoah! by Apreche · · Score: 0, Redundant

    How much does an ad in the NYT cost?? 250K is enough to buy a house, or a superbadass server farm, or a Ferrari! You can't seriously tell me that an ad in the times costs as much as a Ferrari, that's ludicrous. They definitely need to take that extra money and go for some television ads. Or even give some to the developers, they deserve it.

    --
    The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
    1. Re:Whoah! by ztirffritz · · Score: 1

      Don't forget that the NYT is distributed nationwide as well as internationally. That is alot of ad space. I agree that 250k still sounds like alot though. 50k maybe, but 250k?

      --
      Why doesn't anything interesting happen when I have mod points?
    2. Re:Whoah! by ControlFreal · · Score: 5, Informative

      A full-page ad in the NYT costs between $75k and $120k, depending on the page, and when it will be shown. The Firefox team have not chosen a particular day for the ad, but rather a time-window of ~10 days in which it will be shown once. This is cheaper.

      I don't know where the rest of the money will go now. There are tentative plans, however, to raise similar campains in other countries if the ad proves to be a success. Maybe some of the excess money can be used for that.

      --
      Support a Europe-related section on Slashdot!
    3. Re:Whoah! by naelurec · · Score: 1, Redundant

      The NYT ad will cost less than $50k.. The rest of the $250k will be used by the Mozilla Foundation for other needs (promotions, developers, equipment, etc..)

    4. Re:Whoah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe they said their time window was 3 weeks, and that they got a really really good rate which they can't disclose publicly. I'm guessing it's under $50,000.

    5. Re:Whoah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, this money all goes towards promotion.

    6. Re:Whoah! by ricotest · · Score: 5, Informative

      Acocording to this article, the advert costs only $50,000. We already know that The Mozilla Foundation are getting discounts because of the time window, and also because of their non-profit status.

    7. Re:Whoah! by Xepo · · Score: 1

      The donation that people put in was not supposed to go solely to the ad. The money that's not used on the ad they specifically said will go to other launching expenses, be that more advertising or whatever.

    8. Re:Whoah! by roj3 · · Score: 1

      that's what it costs when you're a for-profit company. The Mozilla Foundation is a non profit. The ad cost less than $50K.

    9. Re:Whoah! by dapyx · · Score: 1

      They're getting a discount because:
      (a) they're a non-profit foundation
      (b) they have a non-specific day contract (when the NYTimes have the ad space)
      (c) NYTimes people hate IE as much as anybody :)

      --
      I'm sorry, the number you have dialed is an imaginary number. Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and dial again.
    10. Re:Whoah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, read the FAQ.

      "Oh, wait. This is Slashdot."

    11. Re:Whoah! by arose · · Score: 1

      50k is what they will be paying for the ad. :-)

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
  10. In other news... by sl8r · · Score: 5, Funny

    A mention of the spreadfirefox website on popular website slashdot.org brought new woes to the spreadfirefox team:

    "We completely went over our bandwidth for this month, and I was just served with a bill over $250'000 for this month's bandwidth usage!!" ;)

  11. How about a campaign.. by Tracer_Bullet82 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    to get /. to show correctly in firefox.

    --


    Timang tinggi tinggi
    parang sudah asah
    alang alang mandi
    biar sampai basah
    1. Re:How about a campaign.. by jZnat · · Score: 4, Funny

      Where did you think most of that $250K was going? :P

      --
      'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
    2. Re:How about a campaign.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If Slashdot switched to an HTML standard... any standard... that validates (even almost validates), then I'd buy another subscription. Also, if they switched to PNG, I'd buy another subscription. Until they do, they're just wasting money and I won't have them waste anymore of mine.

    3. Re:How about a campaign.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why are people always bitching about this? It displays perfectly with a gtk2 build of Firefox 1.0-pre in Linux. Maybe you're using weird fonts or something? It works fine for me with Bitstream Vera fonts.

    4. Re:How about a campaign.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      It's a very real bug, but it's sporadic. I have two computers here, one with XP and one with 2K. I copied the profile from XP to 2K. The XP one shows the bug, but the 2K one doesn't. It's part a Gecko bug, but it's also part bad HTML.

    5. Re:How about a campaign.. by shish · · Score: 3, Informative

      The bug is like so (or I may be talking about a different bug, I'm not quite sure...): The page is loaded, the layout set in stone, and then any images that weren't quite ready get drawn on top. The problem is when the images that get drawn in the last stage are larger or smaller than expected, and they don't affect the layout. Hence images used for padding (a Very Bad Idea to begin with) sometimes mess up the layout if they don't load fast enough.

      --
      I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
    6. Re:How about a campaign.. by Val314 · · Score: 3, Informative

      FYI: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21752 7

    7. Re:How about a campaign.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have the same intermittent problem with Froogle's grid view, so I think that this is a real problem with Firefox, not a problem with Slashdot's HTML as some people claim.

    8. Re:How about a campaign.. by BenjyD · · Score: 5, Interesting

      They're even trying to hide from the validators:
      W3 validator is 403'd
      Actual results on the current front page not good

    9. Re:How about a campaign.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After talking on the slashcode irc channel...
      if you ask the slashcode maintainers they will anwser you that "it is too much job" to make the code xhtml/css.

      God damn, you are PAID to do some fscking html!

      There must be some other reasons.

    10. Re:How about a campaign.. by pipingguy · · Score: 1


      Taco said on Screensavers that modifications to the moderation system were underway. No public mention of CSS support even though that is probably an easier thing to do.

    11. Re:How about a campaign.. by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      It is both.

      Even with HTML 4.01 Transitional, Slashdot has about 43 validation errors. With 3.2, it shows 120+ errors. With 4.01 Strict, the validator shows about 190 errors.

    12. Re:How about a campaign.. by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      There are other reasons, but they don't seem to say them.

      The funny thing is that someone has already done a css version of slashdot just for grins. They estimated that slashdot could easily $3kUSD or more per month if they switched to css. I have to think that payoff should be enticing.

    13. Re:How about a campaign.. by Fweeky · · Score: 1

      Too much work for too little payback, I imagine; especially with regard to things like comments and stories, which would easily tear said XHTML to shreds without significant work (just *testing* that work is a challange, never mind writing it).

      Oh, and please stop associating XHTML with CSS; HTML 4.01 Strict is *JUST AS GOOD* as XHTML, if not better, since it doesn't ask the browser to stop rendering if you mess up some trivial little detail (and a site like this has a *lot* of trivial little details), nor does it have these silly Content-Type issues (why are you serving XML as text/html, a (pseudo)-SGML format? That's a huge hack if ever I saw one), and it's actually *supported* in IE et all.</pointless-rant type="nobody cares, not even me">

    14. Re:How about a campaign.. by Tim+C · · Score: 1

      That sounds an awful lot like what happens on dabs.com (a UK computer components & electronics supplier) in Mozilla. You get a table full of search results, then the images for each product load, and the bottom of the table goes zooming off the bottom of the window. You have to resize the window to fix it - you can't scroll down that far. Until I worked that out, I used to reload the page - sometimes that fixed it, sometimes it didn't...

    15. Re:How about a campaign.. by man_ls · · Score: 1

      Firefox also chokes on CNN.com for me a lot of times...so it's got to be the browser.

    16. Re:How about a campaign.. by c0p0n · · Score: 1

      It's not a particular slashdot defection. Firefox fails when dealing with relative sizes (specially table sizes expressed on '%').

      --

      Your head a splode
    17. Re:How about a campaign.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd guess its a lot harder to enforce standards compliant parsing on a forum such as slashdot- particularly when so many random people can post comments on pages containing html entities and other spurious characters that might screw up validation. If slashdot ever manages to pull w3c compliance off 100% of the time I for one will have the utmost respect for slashcode's developers...

      Nick...

    18. Re:How about a campaign.. by wmeyer · · Score: 1

      Of the browsers I have tried on /., only Opera (which I dislike intensely) reliably displays /. without any screw-ups. Ironic that a site that champions open source and standards compliance should itself be so loathe to comply.

      --
      --- Bill
    19. Re:How about a campaign.. by dapyx · · Score: 1

      That was the result of the latest "slashdot doesn't validate" campaign. :-)

      --
      I'm sorry, the number you have dialed is an imaginary number. Please rotate your phone 90 degrees and dial again.
    20. Re:How about a campaign.. by ip_fired · · Score: 1

      Weird, why would /. hide from the w3 validator? Except that their site doesn't conform.

      But I went and validated it, and it really isn't that bad. It guesses that the document is HTML 3.2, but it has elements from 4 in it, so I revalidated it as 4.01 Transitional, and it had only 45 errors.

      And it turned out that those errors were mainly because of the javascript used to generate the page (it threw out 20 errors because of a url that it was parsing, and shouldn't have been).

      Overall, not bad, and it would probably only take them a day to clean it up. I wonder why they haven't yet.

      --
      Don't count your messages before they ACK.
    21. Re:How about a campaign.. by ender81b · · Score: 1

      The editors got tireed of the hypocrasy of bitching about web standards while, at the same time, having an ancient non-compliant site.

      That would be the reason :).

    22. Re:How about a campaign.. by qbwiz · · Score: 1

      Ctrl-+ (Ctrl and plus at the same time) and then Ctrl-- (Ctrl and minus at the same time) always slashdot (and so probably that) for me.

      --
      Ewige Blumenkraft.
    23. Re:How about a campaign.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what you get when you have kids building web sites.

  12. A key part of the struggle by jlrowe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The average user thinks the IE *is* the internet.
    The key point then Is to educate the user that the browser is not the internet, but just software that accesses the web. And that Firefox is better at doing that and protecting them from intrusion.

    1. Re:A key part of the struggle by Aruthra · · Score: 5, Funny

      You can't fool me. The internet is clearly stored inside my hard drive and IE is required for me to access it.

    2. Re:A key part of the struggle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is fine and dandy, but when the IE only pages don't render on their browser what will you tell them then? Sure _you_ can and will complain to the webmaster, but joe-schmoe won't. My dad's stock-trading site is actually implemented in asps. He's not shifting until he moves to a different brokerage site...and that's not happening anytime soon...

    3. Re:A key part of the struggle by lintux · · Score: 1

      Implementing a site in ASP/.NET doesn't prevent you from supporting multiple web browsers... Just as using PHP doesn't prevent you from making MSIE-only sites...

    4. Re:A key part of the struggle by teknurd · · Score: 1

      Most of the people I know think the Internet is AOL. Attempting the educate the "Great Masses of the Unwashed" is an almost unsurmountable task.

      --

      The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese!
    5. Re:A key part of the struggle by jZnat · · Score: 1

      I thought that was obvious as Google has already made that clear. =)

      --
      'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
    6. Re:A key part of the struggle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So why are you paying $20+ for that Internet connection?

    7. Re:A key part of the struggle by burns210 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oh man, don't remind me.

      I was surfing around my interweb the other day and it was like beep boop beep BEEP! Then it went all blank, and I was like 'dude, I just deleted the interweb!" and then I was like expecting the CIA to come get me or something, but it was in my recycle bin, so I saved it... Phew... that was a close one.

    8. Re:A key part of the struggle by Fweeky · · Score: 1

      If you're going to "educate", might I suggest introducing them to Opera too? And any other decent browser on $platform_of_choice? Otherwise you're not educating, you're just being a fanboi. It's worse than all the Linux users who talk about it as if it's the only free *ix that's worth thinking about, when it's really part of a sizable group with different strenths and weaknesses :/

    9. Re:A key part of the struggle by Dethboy · · Score: 2, Funny

      Jeez dude. Even W knows there is more than one. I have one Internet on my PC at home and another one on my PC at work. So do my co-workers.

      Firefox - Ruler of the Internets

    10. Re:A key part of the struggle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That reminds me of a story (true?) of a man in the early days of internet boom asking a tech support to copy the internet for him on a floppy disk.

      One hell of a compression algorithm, ain' it?

    11. Re:A key part of the struggle by LoudMusic · · Score: 1

      You can't fool me. The internet is clearly stored inside my hard drive and IE is required for me to access it.

      Hard-Drive? That must be some new fangle thing. The Inter-net is clearly stored inside that cute blue "e" on the television in front of my typewriter.

      --
      No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
    12. Re:A key part of the struggle by Rallion · · Score: 1

      No, man, the AOL internet is different than the IE internet! That's why you have to subscribe to AOL and another ISP at the same time, to get it all.

      I talked to somebody who thought this, I swear. I almost went insane.

    13. Re:A key part of the struggle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, you won. But please do not drop the computer next time you will carry it arround. Its little bit shaking in here...

    14. Re:A key part of the struggle by kesuki · · Score: 1

      Currently, only the fact that ActiveX and Shockwave support aren't included by default make firefox more 'secure' than internet explorer.. Sp2's IE has popup blocking, doesn't have the same url 'sploit mentioned earlier, and once you install activeX and shockwave support to firefox, it becomes just as easy a bridge into zombification of ones Pc as IE. Shockwave has been called out numerous times for numerous exploits it enables, and some of those exploits are intrinsic to the nature of shockwave -- running an application within a browser, using the local cpu's processing power.
      True, you can install firefox shockwave free, and you can't with ie install shockwave free, but you can always hack the ie install to 'remove' shockwave support... If shockwave applets ran in a sandbox like java applets do, it would be as secure as java, but it doesn't run in a sandbox, so there is no way to safely use a shockwave enabled browser on an untrusted site...

    15. Re:A key part of the struggle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hard drive? Is that the TV part, or is it the same as the CPU box thingy? And I don't use IE. I just click on that blue "e" internet button.

  13. Re:Firefox is the new Mozilla Browser by maxume · · Score: 2, Funny

    Mozilla is dead...Long live Mozilla.

    --
    Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
  14. 10 days, 10,000 names, $250,000 by helfen · · Score: 5, Informative

    Notice that they were preparing for about 2,500 donors in 10 days at first. And at the end of the 10th day we have a donors from over 80 countries. Quite amazing.

    1. Re:10 days, 10,000 names, $250,000 by stesch · · Score: 1

      Donors from over 80 countries? For an ad in a local newspaper?

    2. Re:10 days, 10,000 names, $250,000 by asa · · Score: 1

      Donors from over 80 countries? For an ad in a local newspaper?

      The NYT is available world-wide. It's the most distinguished newspaper in the U.S. Donors to the campaign understand this and believe it to be a worthy cause (or they wouldn't be donors, right?)

      --Asa

    3. Re:10 days, 10,000 names, $250,000 by BenjyD · · Score: 1

      US papers are (AFAIK) named after a city but often distributed widely outside that area.
      That's why Americans always refer to the "London Times" or (presumably) the "Berlin" Zeit.

    4. Re:10 days, 10,000 names, $250,000 by cagliost · · Score: 1

      Wikipedia didn't get as much - I think they're a more worthy cause, because they provide knowledge, whereas browsers merely access it. Also, why Firefox? Why has the Open source community thrown its weight behind Firefox, specifically?

    5. Re:10 days, 10,000 names, $250,000 by LnxAddct · · Score: 1

      The browser is the portal to the world's information. It is also one of Microsoft's most entrenched products and MS has made companies go bankrupt just to force IE on users. If we can beat MS at the browser war, then all of the sudden web sites will have to start being standards compliant, all of the sudden Linux users can bank online, all of the sudden the world has realized that Open Source is a viable alternative and has quality. If firefox can get on the majority of desktops then people will be more receptive to Open Source, they will know its out there, something many people don't know right now. The user base of OSS and OSS operating systems will go up. It will give companies incentives to write cross platform applications and drivers. Maybe in a year or two you'll see OpenOffice.Org starting to cut into MS's office space too. All of the sudden people will have very few reasons not to switch to linux, they can no longer say that they won't be able to view certain websites because the web will be standardized and they won't be able to say that they can't exchange documents because by OpenOffice.org 2.0 I would suspect that it'll be far greater competition to MS (not that it isn't already). Yes, wikipedia is important, but not everybody needs an encyclopedia all the time. This is a good effort and will help everyone in OSS over the long run.
      Regards,
      Steve

    6. Re:10 days, 10,000 names, $250,000 by handslikesnakes · · Score: 1

      I think there's a number of reasons; it's a good product, it's something that almost everyone with a computer has a use for and it's in a sector of the market that doesn't have a lot of competition. Nobody paid for IE and they probably haven't invested a lot of time learning it so it's easy for them to switch. Maybe I'm buying into the hype, but Firefox is in a position to hit the big-time.

    7. Re:10 days, 10,000 names, $250,000 by jadavis · · Score: 0, Troll

      It's the most distinguished newspaper in the U.S.

      Was, perhaps. Just like Dan Rather may have been respected in the past. Now the NYT is just a propoganda paper with editorials presented as "news". It's been happening for a while, but people like Jayson Blair have just made it more apparent recently.

      --
      Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
    8. Re:10 days, 10,000 names, $250,000 by roj3 · · Score: 1
      I was watching the Wikipedia fundraiser with interest (and gave $50 to support it).


      A successful fundraiser is more than just asking for money - that's why you have charity balls each year. Throwing the party is a lot of money, but they raise back 3-4x the amount they spend on the party. In this case it cost less than $50,000 to raise $250,000.

    9. Re:10 days, 10,000 names, $250,000 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Firefox marketing had a good idea.

      I know I only donated so my name would be in the NYT. (I'm not in America) Even if it's in tiny print it'll still be there.

      (Yeah, i know non-geeks wouldn't find it cool to be listed with a whole lot of others supporting a piece of software, but I do.)

      If wikipedia had done it, i'd have rather given my money to them. But a message in a paypal log just isn't enough recognition.

  15. It doesn't all go to the ad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    If you don't remember, the original campaign was for 2500 people in 10 days (so we'll assume they'd raise about a quarter of the money ~$62,500) and even then they said not all of the money would go to the ad but to fund additional publicity for the launch. If we assume the ad costs the same, you see they probably have $200,000+ for other publicity... or a big slush fund.

  16. Sponsors? by Man+in+Spandex · · Score: 1

    Some of that 250K should go in development directly given to the mozilla foundation. They made firefox and they could always use more help financially. Who doesn't?

    Some of that other 250K should go in advertisement such as being a sponsor in rally events or something? We see HP/Compaq logos on McLaren in F1 so why not the Firefox logo? :D

    1. Re:Sponsors? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think they should try to get the Firefox logo on one of the vehicles in the DARPA Grand Challange.

  17. See by Tracer_Bullet82 · · Score: 2, Informative
    --


    Timang tinggi tinggi
    parang sudah asah
    alang alang mandi
    biar sampai basah
    1. Re:See by thatnerdguy · · Score: 0

      "Sorry, we cannot find the page you requested."

      --
      I saw the Sign, and it opened up my eyes
  18. Firefox is gaining momentum allright by Lisandro · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I see it among non tech-savy people. I have friends coming and asking me if i've tried it; in the cybercafe i work it's installed on every PC and something like 7 out of 10 clients choose it over IE.

    I'm very happy to see this. I still like Opera better, but Firefox is a terrific browser. And the price is right.

    1. Re:Firefox is gaining momentum allright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anything that dislodges IE from the mind of average users is good. After you disassociate IE from the Internet, people will understand that it's merely a browser and there are other choices beyond IE and Mozilla. Firefox popularity may help Opera in the long run.

    2. Re:Firefox is gaining momentum allright by Fnkmaster · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Yes, I'm happy too, but a bit apprehensive. The Mozillazine Firefox forums, which used to be a friendly place for new users to get support and to visit and help others occasionally, but generally a great resource for learning about FF/Mozilla, have become a massive troll and flamefest. Annoying people come by to say how they tried Firefox and it didn't have Java or Flash out of the box or couldn't view their favorite ActiveX site, and thus they are going back to IE. Then they rant about how nasty the Firefox forum people are and THAT'S why they're going back to IE.


      It's really become quite awful. Everybody was generally friendly and collegial there a while back, because it was the early adopter crowd. Now all these people, who are either the most nasty trolls I've ever seen, or just the most obnoxious human beings imaginable have ruined it. And as a result, when somebody says something like "I don't like this part of Firefox" they are likely to start a flamewar. I am saddened by this. I'm sure there's still useful discussion elsewhere, but I'm beginning to think having that "Firefox Support" link right in the toolbar is not such a great idea. I wouldn't want people to go to that forum and see the nastiness going on there and judge a fabulous browser and otherwise excellent community by it.


      Dealing with TRUE mass market desktop applications is something the Open Source community is just now broaching. Several million installs of a piece of software that is probably the most commonly used thing on somebody's desktop - that's getting seriously mainstream. And mainstream means dealing with mainstream idiocy, infantile children, illiterate adults, and all the other annoying people in between. I'm not saying we shouldn't care about user friendliness, on the contrary, I'm saying that it's hard to maintain user friendliness supported by the community when the community stops being a bunch of tech-saavy hackers and starts being a bunch of idjits.

    3. Re:Firefox is gaining momentum allright by Travis+Fisher · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Dealing with TRUE mass market desktop applications is something the Open Source community is just now broaching. Several million installs of a piece of software that is probably the most commonly used thing on somebody's desktop - that's getting seriously mainstream. And mainstream means dealing with mainstream idiocy, infantile children, illiterate adults, and all the other annoying people in between. I'm not saying we shouldn't care about user friendliness, on the contrary, I'm saying that it's hard to maintain user friendliness supported by the community when the community stops being a bunch of tech-saavy hackers and starts being a bunch of idjits.

      The parent message is insightful! As this advertising campaign shows, the great success of Firefox has been its ability to reach out to people, to have a larger community. But a larger community means a different set of community dynamics. Its like the change from a frontier settlement to an established city. For the community dynamics to work well you need to put more institutional structure in place, like police, or maybe even the tax man. And in the process you lose some of the closeness of the community.

      On the other hand, I think there are solutions. Mozillazine just needs to adapt to have better moderation, to get more useful comments and discussion to more prominent positions. Maybe even they should switch to something more like a wiki format for discussion less transient than the day-to-day babble.

      But yes, it will be interesting to see how this develops. I really do expect to see free/open source software take over -- eventually -- for all of the mainstream uses. But it will be a long bumpy ride between here and there. This is just the beginning!

    4. Re:Firefox is gaining momentum allright by imroy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Gee, sounds a lot like Slashdot. See my three-digit uid? I've been here almost since Slashdot began. It was nice back then. Everyone was pretty nice. The occasional disagreement broke out, but all-in-all it was a pretty good discussion. Since then it's grown. The trolls have become downright professional. The flames are pretty vicious. Everyone's on a hair-trigger to jump out and defend any slight against their favourite OS, distribution, browser, MTA, MUA, or whatever. I don't know about everyone, but a lot of comments seem to be pretty self-concious about what they write, careful not to offend anyone or give the wrong impression. I know I usually am.

      It's kinda sad in a way, but I guess it's what happens when any open-forum grows past a certain size.

  19. This Is Serious by blueZhift · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Congrats to Firefox on the $250K! This is the stuff that sends ripples through the market and makes the CEOs stop and take notice. You don't just raise a quarter million dollars in less than two weeks unless you have something seriously good, or illegal!;-) Anyone in the browser or browser add-on business is going to have to take notice of this because it is real. Browser stats from various web sites are nice, and so are download stats. But at the end of the day, money talks louder than all of that, and $250K is some pretty loud speech!

    1. Re:This Is Serious by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

      You don't just raise a quarter million dollars in less than two weeks unless you have something seriously good, or illegal!;-) -- That of course could be considered an and/or question [eg] but yes raising 1/4M$us in a fortnight does take some doing does anybody have a way to pull the extensions off the update.mozilla server enmass?

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
  20. Next step: Hire Ellen Feiss for a TV ad by Poro · · Score: 5, Funny
    The next logical step is to make a TV ad. A switch ad with Ellen Feiss, this time switching from IE to Firefox. And looking as stoned as always.

    "I was surfing in the net. And then, like, bleep bleep bleep bleep bleep! And then, like, half of the web page was gone. And I was, like, Huh?"

    1. Re:Next step: Hire Ellen Feiss for a TV ad by twoslice · · Score: 0
      you missed the fact that IE is slow. it is kind of like...

      wait for it...

      a bummer

      --

      From excellent karma to terible karma with a single +5 funny post...
    2. Re:Next step: Hire Ellen Feiss for a TV ad by NotoriousQ · · Score: 1

      The question is:
      Was it a really good webpage?

      --
      badness 10000
    3. Re:Next step: Hire Ellen Feiss for a TV ad by The-Bus · · Score: 2, Informative

      For those that forgot who she is, the original Ellen Feiss fansite, EllenFeiss.net details her story. Disclaimer: I know the guy who made that site.

      In related news, I think it would be worthwhile for Firefox to advertise in the Wall Street Journal or the Economist as well, just because those two publications are read by decision makers in companies. Unfortunately, TV ads will run quite a bit more, but why not a SuperBowl ad? It's not until February. My guess is that it's probably a waste of money. If I were in charge, I would do an ad on The Economist, advertise on NPR (no one there likes businesses anyway), and then gather another round of funding this time from businesses, who can easily give $100-1,000, especially if it is to a non-profit, to have a ridiculous week-long blitz in the Ny Times, Washington Post, LA Times, USA Today, and Chicago Tribune.

      --

      Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.

    4. Re:Next step: Hire Ellen Feiss for a TV ad by bersl2 · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, TV ads will run quite a bit more, but why not a SuperBowl ad? It's not until February. My guess is that it's probably a waste of money.

      $250,000 is one thing; $2,500,000 is quite another. And probably a waste of money? More like definitely. How many announcement Superbowl ads have ever been effective?

      The rest of what you suggest is more reasonable, but I would wait a little longer than you suggest before having another round of fundraising.

    5. Re:Next step: Hire Ellen Feiss for a TV ad by The-Bus · · Score: 1
      $250,000 is one thing; $2,500,000 is quite another. And probably a waste of money? More like definitely. How many announcement Superbowl ads have ever been effective?


      Apple Macintosh?

      The rest of what you suggest is more reasonable, but I would wait a little longer than you suggest before having another round of fundraising.


      Consumers need repetition. If they see messages in succession over a several week/month period will prove more effective than every 3 or 4 months.
      --

      Small potatoes make the steak look bigger.

    6. Re:Next step: Hire Ellen Feiss for a TV ad by bersl2 · · Score: 1

      If they see messages in succession over a several week/month period will prove more effective than every 3 or 4 months.

      People don't necessarily like being begged for money in succession. Notice I did not say "advertising"; I did say "fundraising."

      Granted the effectiveness of advertising is difficult to show, but what are the actual numbers of Apple's sales before, during, and after that campaign? And even so, one Superbowl ad (which is what I was talking about) is still probably not (as) cost-effective.

  21. There is no big deal by osmethnee · · Score: 1

    There is no big deal - someone just thought they'd like to see their name in lights by posting a nonsense bug to a popular mailing-list.

    1. Re:There is no big deal by osmethnee · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, I'll expand on that...

      Having the status-bar and the link-target disagree is a non-event (and has been ever since 99% of people enabled javascript in their browser.)

      A major event would be where the address bar and dislayed-url differ. That is not the case here.

    2. Re:There is no big deal by hobo2k · · Score: 1

      I agree it is not a huge security risk, but it is another example of how you just can not trust IE. I am glad firefox has the option to disable scripting of the status bar. (though as people said this is an IE rendering bug, not a scripting issue).

  22. Do you live under a rock? by tommck · · Score: 3, Informative

    The New York Times is probably the most widely distributed newspaper in the world!

    It's not just advertising in New York, Jeez!

    Kids these days!

    --
    ---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.
    1. Re:Do you live under a rock? by paxcirca · · Score: 1

      The New York Times is probably the most widely distributed newspaper in the world!

      Actually, USA Today has the highest circulation of US papers. NYT has half the circulation of USA Today and WSJ. Three Japanese papers and one German paper have circulations above four million.

      Then again, this really doesn't matter. Spread Firefox has done a wonderful job and should be commended.

    2. Re:Do you live under a rock? by tommck · · Score: 3, Insightful

      OK... then it's the most widely distrubuted _respected_ paper in the world :)

      tongue planted firmly in cheek :)

      --
      ---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.
    3. Re:Do you live under a rock? by Nexum · · Score: 4, Informative

      You'll find that we Brits are very much a nation of newspaper lovers. Looking here you can see that although we are but a nation of a mere 55m people, we have the top three newspapers in the world in terms of circulation.

      That includes beating "The Times Of India", with a potential readership of over one billion into fourth place.

      The New York Times comes in 8th place, with a circulation of 1.11 million.

      --

      This sig has been deprecated.
    4. Re:Do you live under a rock? by jonbryce · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I've never seen a copy of the New York Times where I live - in England.

      I've seen the International Herald Tribune and USA Today, as well as lots of British and European papers.

    5. Re:Do you live under a rock? by tommck · · Score: 1

      Well, I've seen the New York Times in France and Greece amongst others.

      It's delivered daily all over the USA.

      T

      --
      ---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.
    6. Re:Do you live under a rock? by double-oh+three · · Score: 2, Informative

      The International Herald Tribune is owned lock, stock and barrel by the New York Times and they both share a lot of the same articles. So when you see the IHT think NYT.

      --
      "For years, I struggled with reality... but I'm happy to say I finally won out over it." -- Elwood P. Dowd
    7. Re:Do you live under a rock? by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 3, Informative
      we have the top three newspapers in the world in terms of circulation.

      If you look at that wikipedia page, you'll see that those top "newspapers" are actually tabloids. "The Times Of India" holds still the first place among the serious newspapers with the most readership. "The New York Times" hold place 5, whereas "The Daily Telegraph" (most read serious UK paper) holds only a distant 7...

    8. Re:Do you live under a rock? by cduffy · · Score: 1

      Heh.

      Dunno 'bout that, though -- I respect the WSJ (even) more than the New York Times. (If your opinion differs I'd be curious to hear, in broad strokes, the reasoning behind it).

      USA Today? Heard of it, but I don't recall ever actually reading a copy.

    9. Re:Do you live under a rock? by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 2, Informative

      And yes, the biggest tabloid (and "newspaper" in general) in Europe, by circulation is Germany's Bild-Zeitung. In other news, there are more Windows users than Linux users. Ha!

    10. Re:Do you live under a rock? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Ehh. Those are the top three ENGLISH language newspapers. I'd be VERY surprised if no other newspapers beat them, considering that even tiny Norway (about 4.5 million people) have a newspaper with a circulation of close to 400.000 a day.

      It didn't exactly take me much work to find this alternative list of circulation numbers

    11. Re:Do you live under a rock? by lightknight · · Score: 1

      Hahahaha...hahaha..ha. That's rich. No, I think the WSJ is the most respected newspaper in the world. The NYT is considerably less.

      --
      I am John Hurt.
    12. Re:Do you live under a rock? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must have a lot of budgie cages to line.

      Or do you still make your schoolkids do craft projects with papier-mache?

    13. Re:Do you live under a rock? by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 1

      The NYT might be widely read, but the WSJ would be a better choice to reach the people who really need the message, i.e. upper management. They're the folks that Microsoft has been targeting for years, and it worked well...

  23. How about double-page ad? by MtViewGuy · · Score: 1

    I think they should seriously consider doing a double full-page ad in the New York Times given how much they've raised. And see if they can do it in full color, too. =)

    1. Re:How about double-page ad? by roj3 · · Score: 1
      yeah, we looked into that.

      Unfortunatley you can't go on "standby" with a "double wide" ad. Which means you're back in the range of the wicked-expensive ads. So, for this one pager we'll pay less than $50K, a double wide ad would have cost over $150,000.

  24. TV Ads?? by tommck · · Score: 1

    What are you smoking?

    250K MIGHT buy you ONE 30 second spot in prime time!

    You reach MANY more people with a newspaper.

    They also have the time to read all the information that is presented rather than getting up to go to the bathroom or pushing the ">>" button on the Tivo.

    And, yes, this is a fair price for the ad. It's just the laws of supply and demand.

    --
    ---- It puts the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again. It does this whenever it's told.
  25. Re:69 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ummmm.. shouldn't that be 42? Jeez what a non-geek you are.

  26. Momentum? You mean charity.. by NekoXP · · Score: 1


    People contributing to a fund is not momentum, it's charity.

    "Just goes to show how much charity Firefox can endear" would be
    more accurate statement.

    1. Re:Momentum? You mean charity.. by wobblie · · Score: 1

      it's not charity. If you worked in this business, and knew the daily outrages commited by IE only "developers" and the crap one has to put up with using IE, it is very much self interest.

      All you IE developers out there with your "I need to launch windows executables from my web app" bullshit: Fuck you. Fuck you a million fucking motherfucking times. OK?

    2. Re:Momentum? You mean charity.. by NekoXP · · Score: 1


      I *do* work in this business.

      http://v3.vapor.com/ contains a good few lines of code I wrote. It's not
      for Windows, or Linux, one of the most little used platforms on the planet.

      If we raised $250,000 for an advert in a newspaper, it would NOT be momentum.

      It's called CHARITY.

      http://www.genesi.lu -- this is where I work now. Does this look like I am an
      IE developer?

    3. Re:Momentum? You mean charity.. by MikeCapone · · Score: 1

      How many other charities raise 250k$ in 10 days?

      Not all non-profit orgs have this MOMENTUM.

    4. Re:Momentum? You mean charity.. by polyp2000 · · Score: 1

      Offtopic - I know --- but looking at your website- I am compelled to ask a couple of questions...

      How good is that flash-player for Voyager ?
      Is the source code available?
      Would it be a good base for an Open Source flash player compatible with Linux?

      --
      Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
    5. Re:Momentum? You mean charity.. by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 1

      Charity is unidirectional. You give a bum on the street charity. You don't expect anything in return. If you tip a cab driver, or give money to a street performer that's not "charity." You could call these 'donations,' possibly. But an exchange is taking place, a transaction.

      --

      ___
      It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
  27. Why NYT? by BobGregg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I still say they should've bought the ad in USA Today instead. NYT has limited average-Joe distribution. USA Today is sold in all the cheesy work cafeterias where America's IT workers take their morning coffee. It's in every 7-11 (well, those in the States anyway) where the non-IT workers take *their* morning coffee. What the blazes is a NYT ad going to do, other than waste precious money?

    1. Re:Why NYT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The New York Times is read by the decision makers (also why WSJ would be a good place). If the boss reads about this Firefox, tries it at home and likes it, well, he might just demand everyone in the office start using it.

    2. Re:Why NYT? by KublaiKhan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      All the CEOs and CFOs and other people with impressive titles read the New York Times.
      Said people have the "final word" on workplace policy or some such.
      If enough of these corporate types know about Firefox, and it gets into their thick skulls [ for corporate executives are among the stupidest people, technology wise, that I know of ] that it's a Good Thing, then said executives may pass down an Order from On High relating to it.

      --
      In Xanadu did Kubla Khan
      A stately pleasure dome decree
    3. Re:Why NYT? by BenFranske · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Get to CxO's.

    4. Re:Why NYT? by heptapod · · Score: 1

      Well since the ad in the NYT is only going to cost 50k, they should use the surplus to get an ad in the WSJ and USA Today.

    5. Re:Why NYT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I would add that (besides US-only penetration) NYT has more international penetration than USA Today. Hopefully you haven't forgotten that there are lots of people outside the United States too.

      Of course, the fact that they're putting this in NYT instead of, say, Time Magazine indicates that the ads are intended for the US, but I don't think there is a US newspaper better read outside the States than the NYT. Good call.

    6. Re:Why NYT? by tinla · · Score: 4, Interesting


      Because the NYT is the famous one. You (and most other people) seem to have missed half the point - they haven't even bought an ad yet and they're getting huge press coverage. The advert is going to generate 'x' new users. The press coverage about the advert being bought will generate 'y' new users. I suggest 'y > x'.

      Is marketing really so hard for geeks to understand? The buying of the advert in the NYT is a story in its own right. The manner of the advert's funding and the advert being in the most highbrow and famous of news papers is what makes it worth talking about.

      --
      0daymeme.com: Great stuff.
    7. Re:Why NYT? by BobGregg · · Score: 1

      I knew someone would say this - but frankly, having been on the streets of plenty of European cities, I have *never* seen the NYT at a newsstand. Since we're talking about a one-shot ad, it better be somewhere where the most people will actually see it.

    8. Re:Why NYT? by BobGregg · · Score: 1

      >>All the CEOs and CFOs and other people with
      >>impressive titles read the New York Times.
      >>Said people have the "final word" on workplace
      >>policy or some such.

      I hope that's not what they're thinking - because if they are, they're fooling themselves. You think one, solitary ad in the NYT is going to change some $500K salaried CIO somewhere to switch their company to Firefox? "Oh, look, they bought advertising - I guess I better switch my whole company right away!" Microsoft advertises EVERY SINGLE DAY. I wouldn't be surprised if they bought the page RIGHT NEXT to the Firefox ad, just for the hell of it.

      You are NOT going to win this battle from the top down. You're going to win it FROM THE BOTTOM UP. Hopefully, that's how SpreadFirefox will help. Hell, just spending that $250K on banner ads on CNN and Yahoo!, and, yes, even MSNBC would be a better use, don't you think? At least then potential switchers would actually *see* what the money was spent to buy...

    9. Re:Why NYT? by roj3 · · Score: 1
      sorry.. read the actual demographic information provided by the papers. The NYT has a larger % of readers that regularly access the internet.

    10. Re:Why NYT? by ti.payn · · Score: 1

      Staggering the ads in all 3 would probablly work much better. I don't think people pay a lot of attention to a singular ad .. in the society that we live in with all of the advertising noise out there, it's almost impossible. But, if you can, after 3 ads in different papers get a few people who read them to say "Oh yeah, this firefox thing ...". Then, maybe, the idea works.

    11. Re:Why NYT? by barzok · · Score: 1

      USA Today is to NYT as People Magazine is to Time.

      "Important" people read the NYT. Many of those people also read the WSJ. Their voice carries weight in their companies. If you can grab a CIO/CTO's attention and get him looking at deploying Firefox across his enterprise, it could mean a LOT of adoption across the board - people use at home what they use at work.

    12. Re:Why NYT? by MP3Chuck · · Score: 1

      If geeks got marketing, OSS would have taken over the world by now...

    13. Re:Why NYT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Because the NYT is the famous one. You (and most other people) seem to have missed half the point - they haven't even bought an ad yet and they're getting huge press coverage. The advert is going to generate 'x' new users. The press coverage about the advert being bought will generate 'y' new users. I suggest 'y > x'.

      Is marketing really so hard for geeks to understand?

      Hoho, thats only a part of the game. The other part is spreading the name. Lots of people read something, but won't actually discuss/buy/look based on that in the short timespan. Now, if you'd talk about Firefox in the cantina one might say: yeah i heard of that, is it anything good? Precisely that is also part of marketing.

      That is, i believe, also precisely the reason Ballmer, Schwartz et al attack Linux while they mean RedHat. The Linux brand is much wider being recognized.

      [Posting AC because i modded.]

  28. Is it just me that feels slightly uneasy? by phaze3000 · · Score: 1, Insightful
    Am I the only one who thinks that this $250 000 could have been put to better use?

    Don't get me wrong, I'm typing this post in Firefox right now, it's undoubtedly a great browser, but wouldn't $250 000 be better spent fighting third world poverty or providing clean drinking water?

    Of course, when one compares it to the vast sums of money spent on unnecessary gas-guzzling 'SUVs' it doesn't seem so bad after all..

    --
    Blaming GW Bush for the Iraq war is like blaming Ronald McDonald for the poor quality of food.
    1. Re:Is it just me that feels slightly uneasy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      By that logic, we should figure out the worst problem on Earth and put all of charitable resources into it. If it's hunger, so that means ignoring cancer, AIDS, diabetes, etc. Is that how you want to run the world?

    2. Re:Is it just me that feels slightly uneasy? by pe1chl · · Score: 0

      Take any issue of the NYT, or any newspaper, count the pages with full-page ads, and you get a very large sum that could have been spent on poverty or clean drinking water.

      And then we are not even talking about all the trees that were used up to fabricate the paper the ads were printed on... how much could they have contributed to cleaning our atmosphere, adding oxygen and removing carbon dioxide.

      But be careful, such thinking does not fit into the American way of life!

    3. Re:Is it just me that feels slightly uneasy? by Ziviyr · · Score: 1

      "All extremists should be shot."

      Its worse than feeding a horde of starving kittens, its better than strangling a horde of kittens after starving them.

      How about a less extreme comparison? One that fits the compared item better (as opposed to fitting nearly everything?).

      Its better than funneling that money into Microsoft, its worse than funneling that money into, uhhh insert something other than housing orphans here.

      --

      Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
    4. Re:Is it just me that feels slightly uneasy? by mobby_6kl · · Score: 1

      >Don't get me wrong, I'm typing this post in Firefox right now, it's undoubtedly a great browser, but wouldn't $250 000 be better spent fighting third world poverty or providing clean drinking water?

      I'm typing this post in Opera right now, BLOW ME! ;P

      I think this just shows that OSS zealots take their software a little bit too seriously. I mean $250 000 in 10 days?? The third largest political party in the US is having trouble getting a million bucks, currently it looks like only $58k was donated in the last 6 days. Looks like people prefer promoting a browser anybody is free to use anyway to changing their government, which takes more effort than clicking on the download button.

    5. Re:Is it just me that feels slightly uneasy? by NotoriousQ · · Score: 1

      First the browser, then politics. Good politics can not happen without a good browser.

      --
      badness 10000
    6. Re:Is it just me that feels slightly uneasy? by BenjyD · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why bother spending on cancer care: we could save thousands of lives in the third world with the money for one cancer ward. Why bother caring for the disabled: we could save thousands of lives in the third world with the money for one disabled access scheme. Why bother campaigning against a road through a nature reserve: we could save thousands of lives in the third world with the money.

      The point is, you can reduce virtually any expenditure to "could be better spent saving lives in the third world". That doesn't mean that the other causes are any less worthwhile.
      Many people believe that the current state of the web is harmful to society, and will donate money to help establish a competitor to Microsoft's domination of the market. If they want to donate money to that cause, that's their choice. They could have given the money to Oxfam, but chose not to.

    7. Re:Is it just me that feels slightly uneasy? by BenjyD · · Score: 1

      You're forgetting that the donations are from OSS supporters the world over. The third party (Libertarian? sorry, don't follow US politics much) is relying on donations from the fraction of the US population that cares about politics beyond arguing over war records, a fairly small group.

    8. Re:Is it just me that feels slightly uneasy? by ergean · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Right... I hate when people do this. "Shouldn't we do that instead of that. To feed the hungry, to save the earth."

      Let me ask you one thing - when you voted did you think of the starving? When you bought your computer did you looked a the performance price ration or to the power used/performance/your needs/price?
      Do you care about the water you waste? Or is the price that makes you think about it? Do your job as best as you can and you'll save the earth.

      The earth will be fine... so start acting if you want a part in that, tell the others how to save the earth, show them how.
      Feed the hungry - damn it, it sound like the criptocomunists and power hungry from my contry trying to get reelected. And not having any other argument other then the "moral" one.

      This is a kind of argument that makes my skin crawl, because we are educated to "act" acording to the moral, and not to act moral. The key word being acting.

    9. Re:Is it just me that feels slightly uneasy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tell that to my little car; which was totaled the other day while I was sitting at a stoplight.

      I am now in the market for a vehicle made of steel, which will end the winner the next time some idiot doesn't understand the laws of physics as relates to driving a vehicle.

      Gas mileage be dammed; I can afford it.

    10. Re:Is it just me that feels slightly uneasy? by grazzy · · Score: 1

      Please dont confuse the people that have donated to the firefox project with "OSS supporters".

      They're probably more like three groups.
      The ones that hate microsoft.
      The ones that rather use a browser that simply is better than IE.
      The ones concerned about security issues in IE.
      The ones that are oss zealots.

      I frankly dont give a SHIT where my software comes from, if theres propritary software thats better than opensource stuff, I use that.
      What license my software comes under is sooo unintresting. Firefox is a great product, thats why i use it, not because I want to look at the source.

    11. Re:Is it just me that feels slightly uneasy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hehe, yeah well thats four groups :) And there are problably many more. Not all of them are OSS supporters anyway.

    12. Re:Is it just me that feels slightly uneasy? by 26199 · · Score: 1

      Money isn't a resource... labour is a resource. Money is just a tool, and as such can't really be wasted. Money goes round and round. Who knows what the NYT will spend it on?

      This particular $250,000 is in one place only because the Firefox people decided to do this campaign. Talking about spending it on something else is utterly meaningless.

    13. Re:Is it just me that feels slightly uneasy? by jejones · · Score: 1

      Am I the only one who thinks that this $250 000 could have been put to better use?

      Who's to decide what's better use? Should we all give all money not needed for a subsistence living to charity, lest we be considered selfish?

    14. Re:Is it just me that feels slightly uneasy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Put down the granola, and step away from the computer. Shave your underarms or comb the fleas out of your beard, as appropriate.

    15. Re:Is it just me that feels slightly uneasy? by roj3 · · Score: 1
      I think of Firefox as "independent media." If we, consumers, are going to continue to have access to the truth, we need to know that there is not a profit motive controlling our access to information.

      It's not the most important thing, but it's a step in the same direction.

    16. Re:Is it just me that feels slightly uneasy? by xSauronx · · Score: 1
      of course it would be better spent on such; or education....the same goes for the millions that wealkthy people spend on homes, cars, clothes and other things...

      the same also goes for the money you spent to buy a pc and pay for an internet connection that could feed a poor child or two for a fair amount of time.

      thing is, you have the option of what to spend *your* money on, so do incredibly wealthy, and so do all the average joes who are supporting the firefox ad campaign. None of us need more than a warm home, good food and clean water to live...but you arent exactly living off bread and water in a fire-heated hut are you?

      I used to think the same thoughts you brought up until i realized how many non-essential things i buy per month that id like to keep having :)

      --
      By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth. -- George Carlin
    17. Re:Is it just me that feels slightly uneasy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, don't forget the laws of physics when it comes to higher centers of gravity and vehicles.

    18. Re:Is it just me that feels slightly uneasy? by phaze3000 · · Score: 1
      Let me ask you one thing - when you voted did you think of the starving?

      Actually, yes I did, the party I voted for had a manifesto commitment to fight world poverty. Of course, I don't think here is necessarily the best place to argue over how much they have achieved on this.

      When you bought your computer did you looked a the performance price ration or to the power used/performance/your needs/price?

      I have a Celeron 850, so I'll let you decide.

      Do you care about the water you waste? Or is the price that makes you think about it?

      Actually, yes I do care about the water I waste. The money isn't really an issue, here in the UK technology jobs still pay well enough that I don't need to worry about the few extra pence wasted water might cost. Nevertheless, I take showers rather than baths, try to never fill the kettle more than I need, etc etc.

      Do your job as best as you can and you'll save the earth.

      I'm really not sure if I'm being trolled here or if you actually believe this. Of course, taken literally you're right - no matter how much we screw it up, we're very unlikely to destroy the earth. But we could make it uninhabitable for life as we know it.

      --
      Blaming GW Bush for the Iraq war is like blaming Ronald McDonald for the poor quality of food.
    19. Re:Is it just me that feels slightly uneasy? by ergean · · Score: 1

      I apologize. I went overboard.
      And yes I do believe what I said, but my aim was misplaced. And it is nice to see that you didn't follow it.
      Maybe there is hope for this thing called Earth.

      Have a nice day.

    20. Re:Is it just me that feels slightly uneasy? by 16K+Ram+Pack · · Score: 1
      It's partly about being selfish, too. Like people spending money on iPods or premium coffee. You go up to people in the supermarket and say "you know what, you should buy shit coffee and give money to the 3rd world".

      There are some 3rd world benefits, like maybe people in the 3rd world have standards based computing. This should allow for more options and even benefits of those countries having home grown software.

      For me, however, I give money to certain FOSS projects because I want open standards, I want choice of tools. It's also a bit of a "paying a debt" thing to me. I promote Firefox and tell people how great it is and help them set up, but I'm not cutting the code and fixing the bugs like some guys are, so I'll give something back financially.

  29. Delet the last slash. by Tracer_Bullet82 · · Score: 1

    or just go nytadvertising.com,click 'display ads',click '2004 category rates'.

    --


    Timang tinggi tinggi
    parang sudah asah
    alang alang mandi
    biar sampai basah
  30. Oh, no problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The 99% name list is the content. It sends a clear message.

    1. Re:Oh, no problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which is what exactly? Will these names make sense to 99% of the people reading the ad?

    2. Re:Oh, no problem. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I said the "name list" is the content. Not the names.

      A quarter of a million in 10 days also send another clear message, btw.

  31. How about a campaign.. by dema · · Score: 5, Interesting

    to get slashdot to be standards compliant.

  32. firefox has it's own url problems. by oliverthered · · Score: 1

    Open two tabs.
    In one tab open a url, and wait for it to load.
    Then open another URL that you know will take a while to load ,firefox displayes the url you've just typed in the address bar.

    Switch to the other tab and back again.
    Firefox now displays the url of the old page in the address bar.

    Way to go, maybe try mistyping the url in a blank tab, switch to another tab, switch back... wow it's blank, cheers for blanking out my typo firefox.

    --
    thank God the internet isn't a human right.
    1. Re:firefox has it's own url problems. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Upgrade. That only happens on 0.9.x, it is fixed in 1.0PR.

  33. Re:More adds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, even Osama Bin Laden could get modded up on Slashdot by posting that. michael would probably post a submission by him, too.

  34. I havn't heard of this up until now... by kidlinux · · Score: 1

    And I'm wondering if it's still possible to send in a donation?

    --
    -kidlinux.
    1. Re:I havn't heard of this up until now... by masklinn · · Score: 1

      Yes it is, you can still contribute to the Mozilla Foundation (through donations), but your name won't be in the NYT ad.

      --
      "The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
    2. Re:I havn't heard of this up until now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you want to donate? they reached the goal.. this money is to put a full page firefox ad in the NY Times.. they now have enough money to do that.. which seems like a big waste to me.. that money could have gone to better use

    3. Re:I havn't heard of this up until now... by Paul+d'Aoust · · Score: 3, Funny

      NO! They do not want any more money. Such actions will be discouraged. HA!

      --
      Standing at the very edge of my imagination, I peered into the inky void and realised -- I couldn't think up a new sig.
    4. Re:I havn't heard of this up until now... by wdd1040 · · Score: 1, Informative

      Yes, you can always make a donation at their donation page.

      --
      wdd
    5. Re:I havn't heard of this up until now... by bitbeast · · Score: 1

      Especially not any filthy money garnered through karma-whoring!

    6. Re:I havn't heard of this up until now... by Paul+d'Aoust · · Score: 1

      okay, I think I know what you're implying... but hey, it worked for me, didn't it? ;-)

      --
      Standing at the very edge of my imagination, I peered into the inky void and realised -- I couldn't think up a new sig.
  35. Unintentional Insight from NYT by FauxReal · · Score: 1

    "While it's an unusual situation in advertising to have a special interest group endorse rather than criticize a product, it's not unheard of," said Toby Usnik, director of public relations for the New York Times.

    Sounds kinda like a certain political race taking place at this very moment.

  36. Just got back by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    From my sister's house after she got infected by ad/spyware through IE, it completely corrupted Windows meaning a reinstallation was necessary, after doing that I instantly installed Firefox as default (with AdAware), somebody else who will not be using IE again (I made sure to drum it into her) and now she's surfing via Firefox and loving it.

    No more racing to close 1,000 pop-ups every time the browser is opened or she goes to a website.

    IE is rather like a virus, in a bad way, now let's make Firefox spread and spread through word of mouth like a virus.

    IE, your time is up, just like the 90s, and now there's a new kid in town.

    1. Re:Just got back by crhylove · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I've done this with about 20 people and their computers.

      It just works better, it's easy to keep those people now.

      --
      I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
  37. Where did the internet go? by yonatanh · · Score: 4, Informative

    Yeah, just yesterday my sister asked me why I don't have the internet on my computer I replied to her by blatantly asking, "What the fuck are you talking about?" Of course her reply was where did that Internet Explorer icon go. Just to show you how IE is dominating the damn browser market, people don't even know there is other software that can be used to visit websites (other than AOL users).

    1. Re:Where did the internet go? by decarelbitter · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I recently installed Firefox on the home machine of an ex-coworker. Now she sort of understands things, but her daughter is the completely clueless MSN-type. So to prevent bad things from happening, I put a shortcut on her desktop to Firefox, and gave it the IE 'e'-icon.

    2. Re:Where did the internet go? by IANAAC · · Score: 1
      put a shortcut on her desktop to Firefox, and gave it the IE 'e'-icon.

      I know you think you're doing a good thing - and maybe you are, in the short run - but in the long run, it's really not. You're slighting any kind of credit the Firefox people deserve for their work.

      Not to mention the fact that she'll eventually go to an IE-only site that was previously displayable to her and now doesn't display correctly (you do know that they exist, right?... and that MSN-types frequent them, because they are built precisely by the MSN folks, right?)

      A better option would be to be honest about the addition (not replacement), and show sites that function properly. They exist and are nice alternatives to anything IE-specific that's out there.

    3. Re:Where did the internet go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hehe, healthy sibling relationships. It makes my heart warm and fuzzy :-)

    4. Re:Where did the internet go? by dn15 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I too wanted people to use an alternative browser on our public machines at work. But at the same time I didn't want to mislead people with an IE icon pasted onto Firefox. So instead I tried making a shortcut simply called "Internet" with a generic globe icon on it. And it worked! Now nobody goes digging in the applications for IE, but I'm also not tricking anyone into thinking it is Explorer. It doesn't necessarily promote Firefox to the average user (who wouldn't know Firefox was "The Internet" without this shortcutr), but the ones who actually would be savvy enough to know the difference can still see which browser it is by looking at the title bar easily enough.

    5. Re:Where did the internet go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Firefox icon has a globe on it.

    6. Re:Where did the internet go? by KarmaMB84 · · Score: 1

      With a Fox humping it.

    7. Re:Where did the internet go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, be nice to your sister..

      I don't want her to be all fucked up in the head when she's 18 and legal.

  38. It works in Safari though by NtroP · · Score: 1

    I just tried it. Here I thought I was going to be all smug. Guess it's time to put FireFox on my Mac too.

    --
    "terrorism" and "pedophilia" are the root passwords to the Constitution
    1. Re:It works in Safari though by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

      Um, it doesn't work for me. You do realize that it is SUPPOSED to go to google, but have microsoft.com in the address bar. What version of Safari are you using?
      I'm on OS X 10.3.5 and Safari 1.2.3

    2. Re:It works in Safari though by NtroP · · Score: 1

      I'm using the exact same version as you. When I hover over the link I see the Microsoft URL in the status bar, but it loads google when clicked. Am I missing something? I thought the problem was that the hover/status info didn't match the page that loads - I'll go back and re-read the notice.

      --
      "terrorism" and "pedophilia" are the root passwords to the Constitution
    3. Re:It works in Safari though by NtroP · · Score: 1
      I was right, the notice is about the status bar, not the address bar. When I hover my mouse over the actual Microsoft link it shows Microsoft.com in the status bar, but when I click the link I go to google.

      BUT, when I hover to the right of the link, the mouse pointer is still displaying that it is over a link, even though there is no text there. If I click at that spot it takes me to Microsoft's, site.

      This is definitely a bug.

      --
      "terrorism" and "pedophilia" are the root passwords to the Constitution
  39. I think this is a step in the wrong direction by _aa_ · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In my opinion, this is money that should be awarded to developers, and used to further the project. I'm glad that people love firefox so much, but did apache ever buy an ad in the NYT? Apache is the most popular web server in the world by all estimates. They never had to launch a massive media campaign, because they were simply the best product. That's the way firefox should be.

    Also, Microsoft is going to see this as a direct threat. They have far more access to media (MSNBC anyone?) than mozilla ever will. If they were to launch a counter-campaign, which is exactly what they're being baited into to doing, they could scare a lot of people away from firefox, and all open source projects.

    The money should be given to the developers who go relativly un-rewarded, and to foster the development of mozilla.

    1. Re:I think this is a step in the wrong direction by The+Analog+Kid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Apache also isn't run by Joe Average people who have a desktop from Dell or HP or Gateway. It's run by IT people who I would think are a little more into computers than Grandma down the street.

    2. Re:I think this is a step in the wrong direction by _aa_ · · Score: 1

      You don't have to run it to use it. In fact you're using it right now.

    3. Re:I think this is a step in the wrong direction by BenjyD · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But isn't the main drawback to Firefox at present that it isn't IE? It doesn't support a minority of sites that are IE-specific: by establishing Firefox as a serious competitor with a (say) 20% market share, web developers will be forced to code to the W3 standards and support Firefox. They can't just assume 99% IE and just ignore the few geeks that complain.

      That improves the "compatibility" of Firefox without changing a line of code.

    4. Re:I think this is a step in the wrong direction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well, if you read some of the links above, you'll see that only $50,000 of it actually paid for the ad, and the rest will go to the foundation. Not a bad ratio, considering how much this will get the name out to joe user.

      Even if M$ does directly attack firefox with ads, this bad news is good news for mozilla development. You see, firefox's biggest problem right now, is that most people don't even know there is an alternative. If it becomes a strong enough competitor of market share that M$ needs to attack it with ads, then that will launch it as a brand-x that is here to stay, if not conquer.

    5. Re:I think this is a step in the wrong direction by smart.id · · Score: 1

      That doesn't matter. We didn't choose to use Apache, this site will use it regardless of whether or not we consent (and install it, etc.). Your argument makes no sense, and if you're just trying to point out his semantics then shame on you.

      --
      blog & fiction: jd87
    6. Re:I think this is a step in the wrong direction by _aa_ · · Score: 1

      According to the site, every dollar goes to the mozilla project, but is earmarked for PR, advertising, and other costs incurred during the "launch" of firefox 1.0.

    7. Re:I think this is a step in the wrong direction by w1z7ard · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What you say sounds wonderful, but if the firefox developers asked people to donate money for such personal reasons it will surely fail. The advertisement donation was a very clear goal with immediate and concrete results (i.e., you got an add in an influential newspaper), hence the success of funding.

      --

      "Recursive bipartite matching"- try it!

    8. Re:I think this is a step in the wrong direction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ad will cost just under $50,000, and the left-over cash will be plowed back into the Mozilla Foundation.

    9. Re:I think this is a step in the wrong direction by horza · · Score: 4, Insightful

      bogie made the point above, "What good is all the development money in the world if nobody ever hears about your product?".

      Your average user doesn't install Apache or IIS. Apache never had to break into the server market, it had a foothold at the start and grew rapidly as it matured at the same time as the market expanded. Even if someone created a new OS server it would be less of a hard sell as sys admins are a small select group who are paid to monitor these kind of developments.

      If Microsoft see it as a threat... good. It may push them to fix their bloated and buggy browser. As for launching a counter-campaign against OS software... where have you been living the last couple of years? It's been in full swing for a while.

      Much as a techie may want to pretend it doesn't exist, marketing is important for any product. So far it's been done by word of mouth. Raising its profile via the press, either by reviews or paid ads, it a good thing.

      Finally, giving the money to the developers would be fraud. The donations were made specifically for the purpose of the ad. There is nothing to stop you doing your own fund-raising drive for the developers if you like.

      Phillip.

    10. Re:I think this is a step in the wrong direction by _aa_ · · Score: 1

      I simply used apache as a reference to perhaps a successful open source project. I could have also used linux, but I felt linux was a bad example because companies like IBM have taken it upon themselves to launch media campaigns on linux's behalf. Their linux campaign perhaps sold some servers for them, but it also forced microsoft into launching an anti-linux campaign. A campaign which you must admit has had an significant impact. I would hate to see firefox, a rather young project, drug through the mud.

    11. Re:I think this is a step in the wrong direction by smart.id · · Score: 1

      Microsoft's anti-Linux campaign isn't really aimed at the desktop, which Firefox is, as somebody else mentioned. In most of their statistics, whether they are meaningful or not, they target people using Linux in their servers. I remember as part of one anti-Linux campaign they tried to convince people that their systems would actually cost less money to maintain than Linux.

      --
      blog & fiction: jd87
    12. Re:I think this is a step in the wrong direction by _aa_ · · Score: 3, Informative

      You're right that the money cannot be simply given to the developers as many people donated specifically to have their name associated with this ad. However according to the faq, there is room for some of the money raised beyond the cost of the ad to goto their PR firm, other firefox launch related costs, and then possibly to developers.

      Marketing is important when your goal is to profit. In fact it's crucial. But the goal of the mozilla foundation is not to profit. That's best left to Netscape.

      If your goal is to encourage people to use firefox, then microsoft fixing their browser is about the worst thing that can happen. It would encourage everyone you spent tens of thousands of dollars converting to firefox to switch back. Quickly you decend into a marketing battle, which mozilla simply does not had the funds to fight.

      And I am certainly aware of microsoft's campaigns against linux and apache. To my knowledge they have not targeted firefox or mozilla specifically. In my opinion, an ad campaign would make firefox a target.

      bogie's quote seems to be speaking from the perspective of someone who's goal is to make money. Mozilla doesn't have any investors they need to answer to, they are next expected to turn a profit (in fact they are forbidden from turning a profit). If firefox has 10,000 users, or 10,000,000 users, mozilla is still a non-profit organization. Mozilla's mandate is not to take down microsoft, and I think that that mentality is actually counter productive to the cause. It's in the public's interest to have a diverse browser market. Competition does spawn innovation.

      Don't expect microsoft to embrace competition anytime soon. Even though mozilla is not mandated to encourage competition, I would hope that they would respect that goal. A marketing campaign blasting their competitor is not in the public's interest, development and innovation is.

    13. Re:I think this is a step in the wrong direction by _aa_ · · Score: 1

      My point exactly. There presently is not an active anti-firefox campaign being waged by microsoft, but I fear an preemptive campaign by firefox will trigger one.

    14. Re:I think this is a step in the wrong direction by beemishboy · · Score: 1

      For one thing, it's not just the NYT ad. Just look at all the publicity that it's gotten since it announced the mere intention of raising money for a NYT ad. Whew. What marketing genius. Now if only firefox could stabilize a bit more so all of my extensions would keep working between versions ...

    15. Re:I think this is a step in the wrong direction by roj3 · · Score: 1
      interesting point. However, you forget that $250,000 was raised.. on the condition that a full page ad in the NY Times is placed.


      Think of it like this.. it cost $50,000 to raise $250,000 -- which means that the rest is left over for developers.

    16. Re:I think this is a step in the wrong direction by MonsoonDawn · · Score: 1

      If you think that Mozilla is standards-compliant then you are living in a dream world.

    17. Re:I think this is a step in the wrong direction by ptlis · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's a matter of degrees. Firefox is not perfect; there's alot stuff which it doesn't support yet, the important word being yet; I have every faith that any useful open standard will be embraced and incorporated into FF, whereas IE does a very shoddy job at supporting even old standards (CSS 2 etc) and Microsoft's done nothing to rectify this in many years...

      --
      There's mischief and malarkies but no queers or yids or darkies within this bastard's carnival, this vicious cabaret.
    18. Re:I think this is a step in the wrong direction by legirons · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "In my opinion, this is money that should be awarded to developers, and used to further the project."

      Well if it's your money, and you want it to go to developers, then you can give it to the mozilla donations page, rather than the spreadfirefox page.

      But at least some small part of that $250K is my money. So you don't really get a say in how it's spent because I asked for it to be used in the newspaper advert ;-)

      Personally, [less offtopic?] I find that computers without firefox on are more annoying to me than any small bugs in firefox itself are. That is, if this campaign can get firefox onto more of the computers that I occasionally have to use, that provides a bigger benefit to me than fixing "bug x" would.

    19. Re:I think this is a step in the wrong direction by legirons · · Score: 1

      "It doesn't support a minority of sites that are IE-specific:

      In case anyone is wondering, there are 305 such sites, many of which are using browser-detection, and many of which are just rude messages to non-IE users.

      List is here[bugzilla]

      According to google, these sites represent approximately 0.000007% of the web

    20. Re:I think this is a step in the wrong direction by MP3Chuck · · Score: 1

      Thing is, though, that MS doesn't have to defend IE ... with a marketing campaign or otherwise. The only way to get IE is with Windows. People switching to Firefox does't turn people from Windows, and so MS really has nothing to worry about except maybe a little bit of mindshare.

    21. Re:I think this is a step in the wrong direction by bfields · · Score: 1
      Finally, giving the money to the developers would be fraud. The donations were made specifically for the purpose of the ad.

      Erm, look again--this was a fundraiser for the mozilla foundation, and they stated from the beginning that only a *portion* of the donations would go to buying the ad. There's no fraud here....

      --Bruce Fields

    22. Re:I think this is a step in the wrong direction by antoy · · Score: 1

      Please prove this for me: Prime factorization is NP-complete.

      Prime factorization is a O(1) "problem". Nice try :-)

    23. Re:I think this is a step in the wrong direction by DaScribbler · · Score: 1

      Firefox also runs on Mac and Linux, so Joe User contemplating switching OS's will find it easier if they find familiar apps to work with.

    24. Re:I think this is a step in the wrong direction by bedessen · · Score: 1

      You're making a specious argument though. Your point assumes that the number of people using Firefox in no way affects the amount of funding that they get.

      If you spend $1000 to convince 1000 people to use Firefox, then isn't it possible that some percentage of those thankful people might contribute via paypal to the Mozilla foundation? Wouldn't some of them perhaps do bug triage or support in forums and free up time for developers to do more important things? What if seeing the increased user-base convinces a company that firefox is ready for prime time and they decide to alter their webpages to work with standards? Or they start supporting FF internally... or they donate some of their programmers' time to the project? Or they donate.

      The point is that giving money directly to the developers is nice, but so is increasing the size of the community, which can result in similar side effects: more money (donations) or time (volunteers) for the developers. It's not like you throw away dollars by spending them on advertising.

      Put differently, just because Mozilla isn't about making a profit doesn't mean they won't benefit monetarily from a larger user-base or market share.

    25. Re:I think this is a step in the wrong direction by _aa_ · · Score: 1

      You're not wrong, there are advantages to a large user community, and donations are certainly one of them. And there truly is no faster way to build a following than with advertising. But I do have to question the target audience. I know I tried firefox after reading an article in slashdot. I never would think to turn to the NYT to find out what browser I should be using. Obviously many people do rely on mainstream media for their technical news. But I question both if these people are ready for firefox, and if firefox is ready for these people.

      I don't mean to sound caullous, but what good is a community of fools? The average NYT reader may try firefox because it's free, may even fall in love with it. But do you seriously expect them to participate in the community? They will not understand the general principles behind OSS. When they encounter a bug, rather than filing a bug report like we OSS veterans, they will only get frustrated.

      I think that the fsf does a reasonably good job of spreading open source awareness. I think it would be best if the marketing of open source software was all inclusive. I know that I use firefox not because of tabbed browsing or pop-up blocking (even though they are super), but because it is open source. The software itself is better than internet explorer, but not by leaps and bounds. The project itself is better because it's open, it's freedom, it's community. The average NYT reader won't see it from my perspective, they'll see pop-up blocking and free beer.

      In my opinion, it's not so much that firefox is right, it's that ie is wrong. I would like to equally encourage NYT readers to try the entire mozilla suite. I would like to encourage them to try knoppix, and gaim, and the countless other projects that could enhace their life, fatten their wallets, and enlighten their minds. I feel like this advertising campaign is analogous to flying someone all the way to paris to the the eiffel tower and then leaving without seeing the lovre.

      A real campaign to generate users would be educating them about the benefits of open source in general, not just a single project. It's vain to believe that firefox will always be on the cutting edge. Right now it is a shining star in the open source community at large, and we are all proud of it. But by it's very nature it changes day to day. Mistakes will be made, microsoft will not just roll over and pay dead. They will come out with new versions of ie. Do you propose collect donations for new advertising every time they do? I say give the people a reason why firefox is better than ie that doesn't change everytime a new version is released by either party. I can think of a few slogans right now:

      "Don't like Firefox? Then change it yourself"
      firefox source code in shape of half naked sexy lady - "Want to see the rest? goto http://blah.."

      That's all I've got for right now, but these are things microsoft cannot answer too. They can add pop-up blocking. They can add tabbed browsing. There are no patents on these things. In fact the code is right there in firefox for them to look at as they please. And that is the only reason firefox is better than ie.

  40. War industry by Fuzzums · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Think of the billions spent on the colonial war in Iraq. Now THAT is money that could have been spent in a better way.

    And compared to that, $250.000 is nothing.

    --
    Privacy is terrorism.
  41. Names by guet · · Score: 1

    If they have any sense they'll ghost the names in as 30percent grey text behind the real ad, so that you can read them, but they're not getting in the way.

    That way they get across the fact that they are a community effort with broad support while still having space to make a few points about their focus on security and standards.

  42. Firefox... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Google of web browsers?

  43. Better investment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I buy a quarter million happy meals for 10 million starving kids in Africa, that doesn't make a whole lot of long term difference. Some of those mico-loan programs might make a difference with a quarter million, but the limiting factor there is usually not money to lend, but people willing administer the program.

    On the other hand, 250k in advertising could seriously have an impact on my personal economy. If fewer websites are built that are somehow IE only, and I have to deal with fewer viruses, then that makes a real difference. I think the 50k NYTimes ad will save the economy a lot more in wasted productivity due to IE problems.

  44. They beat Blender, but ... by Qbertino · · Score: 1

    They beat Blender, which required 100 000 Euro to be raised in order to buy out the source into GPL. But nevertheless I find the Blender fundraise more impressive as it didn't have a full page add for offering but "only" a cool piece of special software and a cool community.

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
    1. Re:They beat Blender, but ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I see your point, but it's not really an even comparison that you're making.

      The blender fundraising campaign, as you say, was a bounty. When that bounty was raised, blender was released for the world at large under the GPL.

      The Firefox campaign is about raising money to put an ad in a high-profile newspaper so that awareness will be raised as a result. It would be hard for anyone using a computer to suft the web to ignore the list of contributor names for Firefox in a full page ad for a piece of software being assembled under an NPO company!

      So really, I feel it unfair to say that one is cooler than the other - the campaigns serve entirely different purposes. Blender gained its freedom, and Firefox will hopefully gain "marketshare"!

  45. Setting a goal by XNormal · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Rob Davis is a marketer. He knows the importance of setting an exciting, simple, clearly-defined goal "Get a pull page ad on the NYT".

    It's the kind of detail that makes the difference between "yeah, that's cool" and "I'll give some money NOW".

    Open source needs more people like that. More ideas like that.

    --
    Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
    1. Re:Setting a goal by Zardus · · Score: 1

      Exactly. For months and months I was one of the "Yeah, I'll definitely donate sometime down the road" types of people, and then I saw "5 days remaining" and something clicked. Donated that very day.

      Probably would have never donated it if something like this hadn't been done.

      --
      You can mod your friends, you can mod your nose, but you can't mod your friend's nose.
  46. Good idea, but still the wrong message. by kiddailey · · Score: 4, Insightful


    A full page ad containing "Congrats on reaching version 1!" followed by a list of obscure names of geeks who donated will unfortunately have little or no impact with typical home users who are inexperienced or couldn't care less.

    How many of these individuals can even tell you what version of the AOL InterWeb they are using now? Ask my mom which browser she uses and she'll say "MSN."

    Personally, I'd rather see that money spent on an advertising campaign that communicates WHY people should use the browser in lieu of IE in very non-technical terms. Granted, 250g's won't get you much high-profile advertising, but it could still be used effectively.

    Hopefully, this one ad isn't all the Spread Firefox group has planned.

    1. Re:Good idea, but still the wrong message. by vhold · · Score: 1

      I'm going to have to agree you on the whole concept of advertising there, but then again, would they have gotten the money in the first place if it weren't for the names concept?

    2. Re:Good idea, but still the wrong message. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not just non-technical people that read the NYT. How many NYT articles are referenced on the front page of /.? As a previous poster mentioned, many IT managers read the NYT. I suspect that those are the types that the ad is meant to capture, as they've likely heard of Firefox but probably think it's something "just for geeks". I believe that a list of 10K contributors in a full-page NYT ad would have a rather positive effect on their perception of Firefox as a browser.

    3. Re:Good idea, but still the wrong message. by tooth · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Can i ask did you donate? They were up front from the start what was happening with the money... and it got 10,000 names.

      I think if instead it was some airy fairy plan to increase advertising and awareness it wouldn't have gotten so many names.

      Don't forget, that's 10,000 people buying the paper to show thier ad to thier friends and family, show around the office to fellow workers. Don't underestimate the word of mouth this will cause: People like this product so much that they raised $US 250,000 in 2 weeks for one ad. That says something.

      They've also got links to put in signatures in emails and websites, screen savers, desktop images and flyers to print out and put on notice boards.

    4. Re:Good idea, but still the wrong message. by kiddailey · · Score: 1


      Why would I donate when I think the idea isn't the appropriate?

      By all means, I agree - an "airy fairy plan" would not be the right path either. In a perfect world, an advertising agency would donate a strategic marketing plan and creative execution that would have results that could be measured if so desired.

      I anxiously await to see what they have up their sleeves next, because I'm waiting with my donation in hand :)

  47. What is the message? by coconutstudio · · Score: 3, Insightful
    What impression will the readers have on the ad? Most don't even know what Firefox is. Instead of bunch of names of donors, I would like to have seen a clear message to the rest of the world and even to Microsoft, that IE is the reason for many problems in computers today. "Use Firefox, not IE. Avoid Spyware and Malware. Browse with Confidence, Open-Source is the future of technology", etc... We don't want to look like bunch of radicals or left-wing activists.

    zeia award

    1. Re:What is the message? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      WTF is wrong with being left wing?


      Just try to fly on the right wing only!

    2. Re:What is the message? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "Use Firefox, not IE. Avoid Spyware and Malware. Browse with Confidence, Open-Source is the future of technology"

      The average user wouldn't have a clue what you were talking about. It's bad to put the words spyware and malware in an ad, even though you're saying firefox avoids them.

      As long as the page has the firefox logo, with Firefox written in large letters, it'll satisfy me. Lots of ads (especially for new products) don't have a product description, they're meant to provoke curiousity.

  48. it goes to show just how much momentum Firefox has by u-238 · · Score: 1, Troll

    On the contrary, it goes to show the monumentality of the zeal in the small concentrated minority which constitute its supporters.

  49. Re:Red Herring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Makes sense. The best way to advertise a movie is to say how excited the masses are about it and how much momentum it has.
    Ok. I hate MSIE but I wouldn't give 25$ to a free software www browser to advertise itself and pay the salary of the manager who spread rumors about its momentum.

    People should calm down. There are 10 "extremely impressed" firefox advocators who flood the internet with the product. Take it easy.

  50. No, that should be the Times of India by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Times of India has a distribution of 2.14 million copies a day, and is by far the most widely circulated English daily in the world. Some Chinese language newspaper might be able to beat that though.

  51. it still works by guet · · Score: 1

    What percent of users (NB, not slashdot readers) would even *consider* turning off Javascript in their browser?

    1. Re:it still works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >What percent of users (NB, not slashdot readers) would even *consider* turning off Javascript in their browser?

      About 10% (which is actually almost twice as more than Linux and OS X users combined). http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.a sp

  52. You can still donate to the Foundation... by maggeth · · Score: 1
    And I'm wondering if it's still possible to send in a donation?

    Although this specific campaign is over, you can still donate to the Mozilla Foundation at:
    http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/donate.html
    in any amount you choose...

  53. Re:it goes to show just how much momentum Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who modded this insightful? Damn it - this made me laugh out loud I wish i had mod points because Id be modding it funny for sure. Something about the self righteous use of the words "Monumentality of the Zeal" did it for me.

  54. Why can't they chose a more politcal neutral mag? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wouldn't mind donating but I don't want my money going ot NYT.

  55. CHARITY, how endearing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    uh, endear doesn't mean what you think it does. It's not what you'd use in that context. Hint, it means 'give pleasure to; be pleasing to'. You could use engender if you like.

    I'd also take issue with your idea that momentum should be replaced by charity. The original quote was

    "Impressive to say the least, and it goes to show just how much momentum Firefox has."

    I interpret this to mean that Firefox (or implicitly the 'Switch to Firefox' movement) has a lot of momentum, as demonstrated by the fact so many people are willing to fork out cash to pay for the advert in support of it. You can't say (at least in any variation on English I'm familiar with)

    "goes to show how much Charity Firefox has" (or even can endear)

    So this was one of the least agrammatical stories I've read on Slashdot in a while. This was a public service announcement to prevent the abuse of the word 'endear'.

  56. NYT is liberal crap by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NYT sucks John Kerry.

  57. Firefox in DSL by earthstar · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    Anyone knows how to get Firefox to work in Damnsmalllinux?

    Iam new to linux and the default browser that comes with DSL is too bad...[glinks-h]

  58. Re:Firefox is the new Mozilla Browser by The+One+KEA · · Score: 1

    Actually, the name "Mozilla Browser" is dead. Firefox will keep its name for good now, as will Thunderbird, Sunbird, Nvu and Co.

    --
    SCREW THE ADS! http://adblock.mozdev.org/ Proud user of teh Fox of Fire - Registered Linux User #289618
  59. Great, but could have been better spent by fishlet · · Score: 0

    It's great that there is that much support... but I can think of some better things to do with 250000 dollars, such as hiring 5 full-time programmers for a year to work on all those open-source projects that most volunteer programmers don't want to work on... you know the stuff that isn't fun to work on. I'm sure the firefox ads will adopt a few more users, but overall will provide little bang for the buck. As far as advertising, I would have much rather seen a mass-mailing of CD's... just like what has worked for AOL. AOL got so popular because it was just thrown out to people. I don't really think nearly as many people would have gone out and downloaded the software if they had seen an ad or heard about it on TV. People can't be counted on it bite for anything... even if it's free. You have to make it very easy for them and you have to present some kind of prize to make it worth there while.

    1. Re:Great, but could have been better spent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh, we got a few AOL CDs and they all ended up smashed, intentionally. I also noticed a couple of others shattered in the street too ;)

  60. a million cd's by codepunk · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Hell stamp out a few million cd's and get every damn convienence store in america to put them on the counter. I think the NYT ad is a cool thing but send out cd's just like the aol punks did.

    --


    Got Code?
    1. Re:a million cd's by gnuLNX · · Score: 1

      I think they should do both...heck the CD's are pretty damned cheap...plus if you encourage people to make copies of the ones they have to give to friends you can really start the spread faster. I think that this is about to become farily big!

      Go Hard Firefox...go hard!

      cheers

      --
      what?
  61. Re:Advertising in the NY Times? How sick! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Got into a tangle with some intolerant liberals, eh? They really are haters.

  62. You probably won't see one for IE by timothy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Oh, sure, Microsoft could (under a suitably bizarre set of circumstances) devote a full-page ad to promotion / defense / apology of Internet Explorer, but basically don't have much reason to. (In short, it's not a money maker.)

    However, that's not what I mean: what I'm saying is that Microsoft's users ("customers") and developers ("employees") don't love IE. They're not going to donate money to an advertising fund for IE simply because they think it's so good that everyone with a computer ought to at least consider it.

    Now, you could say that Microsoft's customers are donating money, in part, to an advertising fund for MS and getting some "free gifts" in appreciation -- like spyware, viruses, Internet explorer ... and just like the local public broadcasting station, it seems like MS doesn't like to get just one donation.

    timothy

    --
    jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
  63. dead give away by darth_zeth · · Score: 1

    ah, your cover is blown. you know what a hard drive is. Now if you had said it was in you "white box with the blinking lights" or in your "screen", i might have beleived you.

    --
    "Nobody writes jokes in base 13." - Douglas Adams
  64. Re:Advertising in the NY Times? How sick! by Rightcoast · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    As opposed to the rage Eric Rudolph showed bombing clinics in Birmingham, AL? Go stick your head in the sand and pretend you live in Plymouth, MA in 1720. Stupid bible-thumper...fairy tales are for kids.

  65. This is fine and dandy, but.... by amemily · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...I don't see Firefox making any large-scale penetration onto the corporate networks unless you can manage it with Group Policies.

    1. Re:This is fine and dandy, but.... by Ized · · Score: 1

      transparent caching anyone ?

      http://www.squid-cache.org/

      Don't have to worry about users changing any proxies on any program after this.

  66. Wow!!! Thats more than the Libertarian party rais by Rooked_One · · Score: 1
    raised... oh wait... thats depressing =/

    But on to the real topic, GJ FIREFOX!!!! I LOVE YOU!!!

    Now be a good little browser and thank your friends, family, and god - even if you don't believe in one.

  67. Get rid of bad sites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yep. please tell the morons of sites like this:
    Redmont Slaves
    that you are an investor who just had to pass on the opportunity 'cause you could not read it.

  68. MOD PARENT UP! by Whizzmo2 · · Score: 1

    This is *exactly* what keeps me from recommending FF to corporate clients. If you can't keep the user from adjusting their proxy settings or screwing with trusted domains, you will be doing more work and they will be doing less as time goes by.

  69. Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because the name "Mozilla" sounds childish and silly.

    1. Re:Why by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and firefox doesn't?

  70. Nautilus by ReinoutS · · Score: 1

    If your Nautilus is rendering web pages you've probably installed the nautilus view from Galeon, or you're using an ancient Nautilus version that rendered HTML with the now mostly defunct gtkhtml library...

    1. Re:Nautilus by ajs · · Score: 1

      I only tested the Mozilla variants and Konq; the others I was just citing as interesting in their profusion.

      You're right that Nautilus no-longer renders web content... I had not realized that until I went to verify your post. Thanks!

      PS: Amusingly, when I tried to open an HTTP URL in Nautilus it did "render" it in a sense. It brought up a text view of the HTML for that page ;-)

  71. Firefox Performance/Stability by EventHorizon · · Score: 1

    If Microsoft see it as a threat... good. It may push them to fix their bloated and buggy browser.

    Mozilla has had significant performance and reliability problems since it's creation. I am saddened that their apparent "solution" to this problem is to remove functionality (mail, news, irc) and then launch a massive marketing campaign to rebrand saying "hey, it IS fast and stable now". When Microsoft uses that type of strategy, we all circle jerk about how lame it is.

    Firefox is still far slower than IE, especially under Linux and/or a five year old computer. The $250k would definitely be better spent fixing performance and stability issues--it's absurd that Halflife runs more responsively on many machines than Firefox.

    For all the fanboys and fangirls about to mod me as a troll, here are some tests you need to go run:

    1. Compare IE vs Firefox startup from cold boot. The "IE runs in the kernel!" argument is BS--both untrue and irrelevant.
    2. Compare IE vs Firefox "New Window" latency.
    3. Start Firefox under Linux. You will see a 5-10 second delay on most hardware. Sorry but Slackware, Gentoo,"-march=pentium4", etc, do not make much difference.
    4. Open a link in a new window in Linux firefox, and try to scroll in the original window while it loads. Note that it's unresponsive for two or three seconds--despite Firefox using 5-10 threads.
    5. Load a 16MB text file in Linux Firefox. Enjoy the kernel OOM killer and/or heavy swap thrashing.
    6. Load a ~25 byte malformed HTML file and watch Firefox crash (google "mangleme" for further info). Note how it takes out ALL browser windows when it dies.
    7. In terms of security: note the recent libpng problems (which are not really Firefox's fault, but the $250k could perhaps be used to fund an audit of the core libraries).
    8. In terms of performance: some of the problems may result from poor code generation in g++ etc. So dedicate some of the money to the compiler guys and get it fixed, or rewrite critical sections in assembly for major arches, etc.

    Anyway Firefox still has a long way to go. Given the complexity of their codebase I am afraid we may need to develop a new browser from scratch to have a truly high quality open browser. Otherwise I would love to hear a response from the Firefox devs about what is being done to address these problems.

  72. So Use The Source by EventHorizon · · Score: 1

    Firefox is opensource. You could certainly pay someone a modest fee to disable the proxy/trusted domain options from the menus, meaning that most users won't mess with it. If you need "actual" rather than "apparent" security, why are you using Win32? Microsoft platforms have almost no legitimate local user security.

  73. not to spoil the party, but... by westlake · · Score: 1
    It helps to put things in perspective: Microsoft spend $81 million on advertising in the first quarter of 2003. Technology Advertising and Branding Report

    Microsoft's revenues from OEM sales are up 10% from last year, which means that something like nine million XP systems ship each month with IE6 as the default browser. You could argue that SP2 has already put the brake on migration to alternative browsers. Browser Statistics

    Decision makers do read the Times. The problem is that anyone with a cause and money to burn can buy a page in the Times and eventually you begin to page these things over without thinking, out of boredom or self-defense. Tomorrow's edition will always bring with it some new prophet of doom or salvation.

    I can't see the Firefox add as anything more than a clever fund-raiser for the Moz Foundation, and on that level, if no other, it has been succesful.

  74. Re:it goes to show just how much momentum Firefox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did you have a random dictionary word selector write this post for you?

  75. Oh no.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    does that mean they'll incorporate "children popup books" technology into newspaper ads?

    ACK! :(

  76. You can ask Bill Gates... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is a question/answer thing at Activewin.com, submit your Q's to Bill Gates right now. This isn't an ad, I'm just saying, I'd be really interested to see what the slashdot crowd would ask Bill Gates.

  77. Hey, what about CSS-slashdot!? by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

    Even when the slashdot bug has already been filed for Firefox, it won't be available until Firefox 1.1 (aw crap).

    In other news, Slashdot would REALLY do Firefox users a favor if they implemented things like this (Main page here, article here).

    I mean, isn't this what web developers have been saying for AGES? "It's NOT the browser, but the WEB DESIGNER'S FAULT!".

    So, can somebody explain to me WHY /. won't fix their webpages to a CSS layout? I mean, look at what can be done with CSS! Look ma, no layout!

    1. Re:Hey, what about CSS-slashdot!? by arose · · Score: 1

      They don't care, just look at the IT section theme...

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
  78. Re:Why NYT? (WSJ or USA Today!) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, if their going after the CEOs and CFOs of the world, I would think that they'd be better of going with the Wall Street Journal. Not that the New York Times is horrible, but the WSJ is much more a business rag.

    Furthermore, while getting large companies to switch their employees to using Firefox would be great and possibly snowball into a massive switch by all. I would like to see more home users make the switch which would be better served by an ad in USA Today. It can work both ways, top-down and grassroot, but who cares what an employee use at work, wouldn't it be great if we could reduce the number of zombie (IE/Outlook) computers in homes?

  79. $250k for an NYT ad? by dtfinch · · Score: 1

    What will the Mozilla foundation do with the other $200k?

  80. Oh no.... by Mhtsos · · Score: 1

    You do realise, of cource, if I see a popup ad like the one you describe in the next 6 months I'm holding you responsible.

  81. yeah... um... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    all those "liberals" on the editorial staff like william saffire and david brookes.... i really see your point.

  82. This is something that needs to be addressed by losycompresion · · Score: 1

    In my personal opinion...the firefox logo is not very clear as to its usage, I'm a tech savy person and i have to stop and think, 'ok click the orange thing for internet' a generic globe icon may be better. perhaps making the fox green or something, any artist types have ideas?