Slashdot Mirror
Firefox Lead Now Working For Google
zmarties writes "In a very
low key announcement on his blog, Ben Goodger, lead developer for
Firefox, has announce that effective from a couple of weeks ago, he has become a Google employee. In practice his day to day job won't change that much, in that he will still lead Firefox through its forthcoming releases, but with Google paying his wages, we can be sure that new and interesting overlap between the Mozilla Foundation's browsers and Google's services are sure to develop."
I'm not sure how to think about this. To be fair, I use both quite extensively, and I love the Google search toolbar in Firefox, but I can't help wonder about any conflicts of interest that may arise...
I trust both companies...but have learned that in computer technology, trust can only be trusted so far...
Will Google now become the default search engine on FireFox? So, if you enter a faulty URL, then suddenly, the Google web page appears and presents you with alternative Web links?
I prefer that the development team at FireFox be agnostic. Perhaps, now is the time to switch to Gecko. I hear that it is faster and has a tighter interface with Windows. I sure could use the speed for all my visits to picture-laden porn sites.
So the more FireFox users there are, the more Google users there are. I don't see anything mysterious about this move by Google. It's really in their financial interest, and not just because of the PR.
Because, while it may be good news to geeks, these are news announcements in a business sense. This is operational news which happens to enthrall geeks.
Since Google is first and foremost an Advertisement company, the news which will primarily drive their stock price will revolve around advertisement rates and demand, as well as the customary profit margins, revenues and such.
"If we let things terrify us, life will not be worth living."
- Seneca
I don't mean to slam Google, but just to go ahead and state the obvious:
What a great way to influence a project: pay for it.
Google will really be able to get any pet idea that they have at least brought up as a part of the project.
This is a very cheap way of touching millions of people. A smart, patient and friendly company should be able to find ways to get their agenda helped, even when their employee is generally remaining "independant".
And free advertising: BGoodger@google.com at the bottom of every communication? Though I suppose it'll be something more like BGoodger@gmail.com
This should be happening much more than it does.
Can someone sell me whatever this guy is smoking? No google toolbar?
It has a search portion, that is fully customizable to other searchs, plus the capability to create your own custom keywords to use in the toolbar instead. (like the built in dict "word" for definition, you can use any keywords for search items, if you choose not to use the search toolbar)
Actually, the story seems to have generated a lot of questions and some open distrust.
Don't worry. There is a healthy skepticism of all corporations here, not just MS.
# (/.);;
- : float -> float -> float =
I'm somewhat shocked that someone would say this. I have to admit, I can't help but wonder if I'm being trolled on this. But I'll apply Occam's Razor and assume ignorance over malicious intent.
Firefox has Googlebar and has had it for some time. Now, some have claimed Googlebar doesn't count since it lacks PageRank. Enter PRGooglebar.
I think you have an overly pessimistic view of human nature. I only do what I desire to do, but does my desire make it selfish? If I desire to help the poor, is that selfish? If it is, then calling something "selfish" is empty.
Even allowing that Google may have a monetary incentive to hire a chief Mozilla developer, I don't see what the problem is. At this point, Google needs an alternative browser to keep Microsoft in check. Supporters of Free Software also desire that IE marketshare should drop, and that more open alternatives (such as FireFox) should take the slack. The interests of a "selfish" corporation and Free Software hippies are aligned.
There's no guarantee that Google won't turn "evil" in the future. But let's judge them on things they have done, rather than what they might do.
Please note that I am not totally pro-Google. I have issues with their acquiescence to censorship of totalitarian regimes. But this action doesn't bother me, and I don't see why it should.
Why are you scared? This is free software. If Google tries to subvert the aim of FireFox, users can just fork it and take the development in a different direction. Open software is held together by the community behind it. If you try to act counter to that community, the community, and thus the software, will leave you behind. The worst that happens is that a developer is lost to the interests of a particular corporation and no longer works on the main branch of FireFox. But that seems unlikely to me, as Google knows trying to subvert FireFox to be GoogleFox or whatever would be counterproductive. All they really want, I imagine, is an alternative to IE so that users can choose Google without it being integrated like MSN Search is in IE.
This, frankly, is a silly question.
How would people react if Microsoft were the company in question? They'd be far more hostile. Is this inconsistent or hypocritical? Not in the least.
Microsoft are fundamentally hostile to the Web. They are fundamentally hostile to standards. They are fundamentally hostile to cross-platform applications. They are fundamentally hostile to Free Software.
None of these observations applies to Google. So what was your point again?
You're obviously trolling.
For one, Google doesn't compete against firefox, Microsoft does. That alone justifies every conspiracy loony response.
Second, lets not forget that Microsoft was convicted for illegally maintaining its monopoly.
Third, Microsoft has a track record for playing dirty, being untrustworthy and valuing unethical behavior.
Microsoft is like the Borg. They assimilate developers, leech what they can from their technology, and then destroy them. I think I could count the number of Microsoft products and technologies that were developed from scratch in-house on my fingers.
Google, on the other hand, has a track record of developing innovative and intelligently executed projects. I'm sure Google has some sort of motive in hiring the lead developer of Firefox, and I think I can safely say that whatever is brewing is going to be cool.
-R
"Google are the new MS"
They don't have a monopoly on the search market.
"forming links with good technology and talent"
IBM
"then manipulating it for their own selfish needs."
GPL.
"Trust me Google are the new evil."
Trust me. You haven't the foggiest what true evil is.
Sure lots of us associate Firefox with Ben, but just because he's got a job at Google, doesn't mean they hired him so they could 'take over' the browser, or that there's going to be 'overlap.' Many of Mozilla's/Firefox's developers work at other large IT companies (IBM is the first to come to mind) with none of this influence, or speculation of influence.
Presumably, Ben's work on Firefox will be happening in his personal time, and won't have much to do with Google. I would guess they hired him because he's now got a great track record and clearly developed skills in UI design and implementation.
The reaction would probably be a lot more heated, considering that Microsoft is an illegal monopoly, that was found (by a court of law) to have engaged in anti-competitive practices. Google, on the other hand, has not. That isn't Microsoft bashing, it's a legal fact.
Google and Microsoft are different companies, with different management teams that have different views of how thier companies should be run. It is right and proper that we should treat them differently.
You mean to keep their options open? I'm sure they register a lot of domains, and they'll probably never use most of them.
I do want to see Google and Mozilla working together to make each other stronger (and, frankly, to oppose Microsoft's browser dominance), but we simply don't know yet what Google has in mind.
"and at $200 a share, few other than institutional investors would consider GOOG." Have you ever invested anything in the stock market? I don't know where you invest but commonly it costs $10~$20 for a single transaction of any stock for the private (non-institutional) investor. I'm sorry, but if you don't have $200 to invest, you shouldn't be buying ANY stock. Put it in a nice CD and collect interest. Let's say you buy 10 shares of $10 stock, with a $10 commision you are down 10% from the start. 10% is the historical return for the stock market for an entire YEAR. Not to mention you are going to have to sell this stock to make any profit (anther $10 fee). If you can't afford to invest $200, you can't afford to lose ANY money and you shouldn't be in the stock market to begin with.
Google are the new MS, forming links with good technology and talent, then manipulating it for their own selfish needs.
Trust me Google are the new evil.
Really? Which proprietary formats are they attempting to lock people in to at the expense of open and freely-exchangable standards? Which competitors are they attempting to destroy through anti-competitive contract chicanery which keeps them from getting a toe-hold in the market? What long winded EULAs are they using to deny fundamental consumer rights like resale to the consumers who purchase their products? What DRM platforms are the pushing with the ill-concealed intention of locking all competitors out of the x86 hardware platform? What annoying validation systems are they integrating that limit the purchaser to a certain number of hardware upgrades before they get locked out of their own software?
I'm waiting.
Firefox's lead developer is now a paid employee of Google. Mostly what they want is a better Firefox that can compete with Explorer, and make the web as a whole more standards compliant. This will decrease people's reliance on Windows, and make the web more of a platform. Google is, so far, the best developer on the web platform.
And honestly, if the project starts to suck, either Goodger will leave Google and find another sponsor, or the project will fork, and Google's version won't be the one known as Firefox. That would be bad for Google, and render the whole exercise pointless.
It may be a "conflict of interest," but that doesn't mean it will be bad. Google is an arrogant corporation (not in a bad way), and they think that with a level playing field, they will kick the a** of MS and everybody else. They want Firefox to level the playing field so they can win. The worst possible outcome would be for Firefox to become Google-optimized at the expense of how it works on thee rest of the web; that will hurt Firefox & Google.
Don't worry who's paying the bills; worry about the code he generates, and be happy that he's being paid to work on Firefox, which simply ensures that he'll continue to work on it.
Probably because they dont like relying on microsoft, who are quite likely (imho) to create an MSN search bar for IE (if they haven't already), similar to the google search bar in opera and firefox.
If they ensure one full time programmer on firefox, thats a good thing for firefox, which is a good thing for google.
Its kind of like why all those big companies are interested in linux - lessens their reliance on microsoft, its one of those rare "everybody wins" situation (no i dont count the pyramid schemes as an "everybody wins" situation)
Google is known for trying to attract the best people, not the best products. I suspect they were hiring the brain, not the browser.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
This is only good news.
Not to be naive, but... Just because the guy is working for Google doesn't necessarily mean that Google is now in charge of Firefox. There are plenty of examples of software projects that are not company owned, but in which companies support development, since said companies benefit from both a good product and the karma that comes with supporting good software, especially that they don't own. Furthermore, I doubt too many of us are paid to cruise slashdot, or write the programs we write -- we should wish him the best of luck, and congratulate him on finding somebody to pay him for what he's already doing well!
To be frank, not really no. That's a nice XUL frontend to Google's main search page (which is to say, a lonely search box), but fails to carry the XUL through to handling the results, which is where it would actually have been useful.
Besides, Google needs to have its basic search keep its simple spare design for easy access from any number of browsers and to maintain the overall simplicity of basic searching.
GMail, on the other hand, has an interface, and it's an interface that coulc benefit from the rich GUI components provided by XUL.
Jedidiah.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
The fact that the main internet browser out there doesn't support this standard isn't going to make it work the way its designed to. Quite frankly I think that google would be unable to change its front page to be W3C compliant anyway, it's one thing a site never working for a particular browser, but its a different thing for a web-page to cease working on a particular browser.
You use standards every day. Bringing HTML into compliance with basic standards is a no-brainer, and it's inexcusable (IMHO) for a company as large and prominent as Google to ignore them.
I'm sure that other sites like eBay, Microsoft, Ikea, MFI and McDonalds and Yahoo also are inexcusable for not following W3 standards.
Because the UI to google is a web browser, so it might be slightly useful to them to have anither person on staff who knows browsers really well.
~~~~~ BigLig2? You mean there's another one of me?
- Google's already somewhat integrated into Firefox (search bar, Firefox Start). As long as that stays the same, it's in their best interest to keep Firefox going.
- Google runs all of its services over the Web. They don't want Microsoft to run the Web, because then Microsoft will destroy them. Hence, it's in their best interest to keep Firefox going.
- They really are planning a browser based on Firefox, and they want the Firefox lead around to make sure they don't fuck it up.
- They're going to rename Firefox to Gbrowser, add twenty links to Google properties, and sell your grandmother into slavery.
Personally, my money's on 1 and 2, and maybe 3.Hey, you try to find an open nick these days!
I see a possible conflict of interest, here. I think he needs to maintain a rigorous separation between any interests that google may profess and what is good for firefox to maintain it as essentially, an open source project.
Google is for profit, firefox isn't, even though both offer use of their product for free.
I think the legal term might be a "chinese wall" to separate work on one from work on another.
When you find him, kick his ass for me.
Evil comes in many forms. I can see some arguing that Google is poising itself to eventually blur the line between corporate services and personal information. GMail rocks; 1 GB is above and beyond what anyone else is offering. Why, though, is Google stressing to never delete anything? Becuase they've got the extra disk space? Why did Google acquire Blogger? Because they wanted to build us a better interface? If we are, in fact, living in the information age, then information is power. And when one entity controls the power, even if it's not Microsoft, it's never a good thing.
Peace, or Not?
Put down the Dreamweaver and step the hell away from the webdav server.
Do you really believe that, or are you just acting stupid to get a laugh on Slashdot? No, it's not "all good" to write crap code that just manages to parse in most browsers. That's the exact reason why pages don't render uniformly today: IE and Mozilla had to make so many allowances for broken HTML that the rendering of a given piece of non-compliant code is a crapshoot.
That's also why people who complain that Slashdot doesn't "look right" in Mozilla get shouted down. Slashcode's HTML doesn't validate so there's no deterministic answer to what "looks right" means. We're basically in the current situation because so many webmasters put up half-assed code that IE and Mozilla had to accept whatever was thrown at them.
Fortunately, XHTML is very cut-and-dried: either a page is valid, or it's not a page. I look forward to they day when "good enough" isn't, and things really will look like they're supposed to on non-IE browsers.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?