Google & Firefox's Relationship

sebFlyte writes "More news from FOSDEM, this time about the depth of support for Firefox from Google. According to this article on ZDNet, Firefox' growth and Mozilla's staffing costs have been underpinned by the Foundation's tie-ins with Google, but they promise not to go the same way as Netscape by selling 'every bookmark and link'... and don't forget that the lead programmer (among others) is directly in Google's employ."

Comments

I'd be

[Digital Warfare]

.. very happy if Google funded me. A very respected company that just works and keeps it that way. Keep the relationship Mozilla :)

Re:I'd be

[SilentChris]

A very respected company that just works and keeps it that way.

This'll likely be judged as a troll, but I'd like to add the likely caveat "for now". Every company the tech community has taken a liken to at one point (Microsoft, Apple, RedHat, etc) has squandered that trust over time (antitrust, excessive litigation, leaving the base community for corporations).

I'm not saying Google will do this, but I can't think of a single, not-for-profit tech company that hasn't done some morally or ethically reprehensible thing at one point in its history. Can you?

Re:I'd be

[flumps]

for some reason, my brain turned "funded" into something..er.. else.

I certainly would NOT be happy if Google fuc$%W +++ NO CARRIER

Re:I'd be

[smittyoneeach]

No. Your requirement exceeds the limits of flesh.
Sorry.

Re:I'd be

[Daytona955i]

I would have to agree. At one point Red Hat was a favorite of the open source community. Now with their subscriptions service an all, they are no longer favored.

I don't know if Microsoft was ever really thought of as a respected company. But I think they definately represent what Google has the potential to become, only more so. I mean think of all the data that passes through Google every day. I for one hope they remain moral and ethical and don't decide to sell out.

Also on the integration, I think it can be a good thing. I love my google toolbar in the upper right corner and I love most of the extra services that google is providing besides searching. It will be interesting to see if they integrate them in a non-obtrusive manner.

Re:I'd be

[Digital Warfare]

Other than the others, I don't think Google will have a reason to changce as they work best the way they are.

But I don't know if thats just me?

Re:I'd be

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree, Google is basically ideal the way they are, but they can always make improvements, add new features, sell more ads :( ... It depends how tempted they are by the 'dark side'. I guess we'll see how it all plays out in a decade or two ;)

Re:I'd be

[Trigun]

I think that with all of their developer apis, etc., we will see Microsoft the way it should have been.

I don't particularly care how they integrate all of their disparate information stores, but if they continue to give us access to the information (and nout just access to the presentation of the information) then they can take the little chunk of my soul that has not been whithered by cynicism and mstrust for organizations.

Re:I'd be

[trewornan]

Google is not without it's critics (ironically just try typing "google censorship" or "google civil liberties" into google). I personally quite like google but the whiter than white image they currently have is a bit misguided.

Re:I'd be

[oil]

It's been said before, but publicly traded companies have an obligation to make a profit. Many people, especially in the open-source community tend to look down on that. It's the "we used to get that for free, you're evil for charging us" attitude.

Google will probably get there, they can't give everything away. However, they seem to be trying to do things the right way and that's all we can ask for.

Re:I'd be

[ShieldW0lf]

I don't know if Microsoft was ever really thought of as a respected company. But I think they definately represent what Google has the potential to become, only more so. I mean think of all the data that passes through Google every day. I for one hope they remain moral and ethical and don't decide to sell out.

They already did. They became a publicly traded corporation. As such, they are legally bound to act in the financial best interest of the shareholders. When the time comes that they have choose between the big money and those portions of their morals and ethics that extend beyond the law's requirements, they've already committed to their course.

Re:I'd be

[Anonymous Coward]

Google will probably get there, they can't give everything away

???

Google already give everything away. That's what makes them what they are. The day they start charging for searching or more possibly for a search that yields more and juicier result will be the day they die.

No one is interested in paying for search results, apart from a handful of loonies who buy jars of air on ebay etc, it just doesn't cut it as a business model.

Re:I'd be

[SilentChris]

Agreed, but with the way people talk, you'd think Firefox and Google were Christs incarnate.

Re:I'd be

[oil]

They hardly give everything away. Advertising pays for most of what they "give away".

The day may come when they charge a nominal fee for gmail with 10GB of space for instance. I doubt that would kill them but it would probably make them evil in the eyes of some. In fact, many already think gmail is evil just because it shows advertisements based on keywords in ones e-mail messages.

Re:I'd be

[Anonymous Coward]

Google showed their true colors by screwing up Google Groups. They are popular and warm and fuzzy now but just wait...a Google Future (TM) is not all smiles and sunshine.

Re:I'd be

[Dan Ost]

I don't believe this. It is not the responsibility of a public company to
maximize profits. It is, instead, the responsibility of a public company to
maximize the value of the company (which, in the long run, is better for
shareholders than simply maximizing profits). Good will, happy
customers, and a reputation for practicing enlightened ethics all add value
to a company that management can point to if they ever need to defend their
actions against a shareholder lawsuit.

Such things may not prevent shareholder lawsuits, but they do provide a solid
defense them.

Re:I'd be

[GigsVT]

Fiduciary duty is about trust and confidence. It's about trusting the discretion and judgement of the fiduciary. The concept implies freedom to run the business as they see fit.

The main requirement is that the company use that discretion and judgement to act in the shareholder's best interest. You make it sound much less flexible than it is.

Re:I'd be

[Potatomasher]

Actually doesn't Google make all the shareholders sign a paper stating that Google might not act in the best interest of the shareholders ? But instead would take decisions based on the long term company vision ?

I remember reading something about this during the Google Pre-IPO frenzy. Can someone confirm/deny this ?

Re:I'd be

[XMyth]

*hurls stone*

Re:I'd be

[smittyoneeach]

Verily, there is as much salvation to be had from Firefox and Google as there was from...let's see:

Object-Oriented Programming

Java

XML

eXtreme Programming

<your technology here>
To append to Solomon, "...the eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing, nor the wastebasket with hype."

Re:I'd be

[civilizedINTENSITY]

"I don't believe this. It is not the responsibility of a public company to maximize profits. It is, instead, the responsibility of a public company to maximize the value of the company (which, in the long run, is better for shareholders than simply maximizing profits)."

Well I've just started an MBA program this semester, and I keep hearing "maximize shareholder wealth" as the corporate prime directive. Company profit is just a means to that end.

Re:I'd be

[Anonymous Coward]

It happens in all forms of human endeavour...

The dreamers and the artists start something up for the love of it.

They find they can make a little money from it which allows them to do it full time.

This ends up being a business and, assuming a certain degree of cash is involved, "the man" seeks to control it and starts imposing rules and needless bureaucracy.

The money men fuck it all up and it turns to shit.

Wash, rinse repeat.

Re:I'd be

[TractorBarry]

Well I'd be very happy if Google allowed me to filter merchants results out of my search results (or indeed let me blacklist certain sites from appearing in my results altogether)

e.g. I search for "subatomic matter" and I get thousands of useless results for "Buy subatomic matter now"... "compare prices for subatomic matter"... etc. etc. Even worse are when I click on a link only to find myself on a page inviting me to search their site for subatmic matter.

The huge amounts of crap results like this, currently returned by Google, have currently made searching rather tedious !

Re:I'd be

[teetam]

I know I'll get modded down for this, but in reality, only the government can censor. A private corporation or individual can never censor anything because you can always turn to someone else. At the same time, everyone has the right to publish or not publish what they want - Google has every right to do that as well!

Re:I'd be

[nysus]

Who do you work for, Microsoft? A search on "subatomic matter" yielded some good results for me.

Re:I'd be

[Anonymous Coward]

Well that's nice and all. I can see the Google link in Firefox, but wehre is the Firefox link on Google? Yea didn't think so.

Re:I'd be

[Dan Ost]

Can somebody please chime in with what the technical legal responsibilities of a
publically traded company are in regards to their shareholders?

Re:I'd be

[Anonymous Coward]

[OT] dude, that's TitleCase, not camelCase ;-)

Re:I'd be

[smittyoneeach]

AndOthersCallItPascalCase.
false_economies, all.

Re:I'd be

[say]

It is not the responsibility of a public company to maximize profits. It is, instead, the responsibility of a public company to maximize the value of the company

Uh. The responsibility of the company is to maxmize profits for the shareholders, not profit for the company (which would rule out dividends!).

Re:I'd be

[Nathonix]

Hasn't google slowly been selling out for eon's now? I mean, what about the adsense bull, even in their gmail beta. And try this one on for size, the latest version of Google's toolbar adds new links into web pages. Granted, its optional, but still kinda morally bad.

Re:I'd be

[Anonymous Coward]

> I mean think of all the data that passes through
> Google every day. I for one hope they remain
> moral and ethical and don't decide to sell out.

Am I the only one who asks why the paranoia is suddenly forming around Google but hasn't been here before? That this whole "They're good now, but they could use Gmail against you" attitude seems too little, too late?

Why didn't anyone say this with Hotmail/MSN? Or AOL? Or Yahoo? Amazon or Visa or TRW? Or how about your ISP logging what DNS lookups you make?

We've been giving away our privacy on the internet for years and years. The only difference is that Google started capitalizing on targeting you by tagging keywords in your emails AND TOLD YOU THAT WERE DOING IT. Who knows what other companies are already doing behind the scenes and not telling you about.

Re:I'd be

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless it becomes dominant enough to be ruled a monopoly...

Re:I'd be

[scmason]

Yes, you see this with companies like Cosco, who has stood that they will NOT lower their employee salaries in order to maximize profit in the short term. They do this under the idea that happier employees make better employees which will result in a better experience for the consumer(asked a Walmart employee for help lately?) Not all comapies are bad, but most are taking advise and guidance from a Wall Street that claims that you are nothing without maximum growth in the short term.

Re:I'd be

[TheSync]

The value of a company is = (value of current assets) * (depreciation) + (net present value of future profits)

The only way to maximize value of a company is to have maximal future profits.

And, of course, the relevant net present value will differ from the viewpoint of short-term investors (maximum profits now) and long-term investors (maximum net present value of profits over a longer period).

Re:I'd be

[aussie_a]

They already did. They became a publicly traded corporation. As such, they are legally bound to act in the financial best interest of the shareholders.

Please point to this law.

Re:I'd be

[hkmwbz]

"Hasn't google slowly been selling out for eon's now? I mean, what about the adsense bull, even in their gmail beta."

In case you hadn't noticed, Google's profits come from text ads. That's what they use to fund their services! How is adding text ads to mail any different from adding it to web searches?

"And try this one on for size, the latest version of Google's toolbar adds new links into web pages. Granted, its optional, but still kinda morally bad."

Let me see if I get this right... Google has an optional toolbar which the user must choose to download and install, and this toolbar has an optional feature which must be activated manually by the user for each page he or she wishes to use it on, which adds relevant links.

How on earth is it "morally bad" to add a button with an optional feature on an optional toolbar, when this feature isn't even enabled by default?

Please tell me that your comment was dripping with sarcasm :)

Re:I'd be

[pipingguy]

words missing parent post.

Re:I'd be

[RedWizzard]

They became a publicly traded corporation. As such, they are legally bound to act in the financial best interest of the shareholders. When the time comes that they have choose between the big money and those portions of their morals and ethics that extend beyond the law's requirements, they've already committed to their course.

And yet I didn't see a flurry of shareholder lawsuits after companies donated money to various tsunami relief efforts. As a shareholder you don't just get sue whenever you are not happy with what a company is doing. You already have a method of redress: voting out the offending officers, so a court is only going to receptive to a lawsuit in exceptional circumstances.

Re:I'd be

[The-Bus]

Unfortunately, value is simply the aggregate of all current and future profits. You can't talk about a company's value without talking about stock price which is based on profitability. To wit:

"Good will, happy customers, and a reputation for practicing enlightened ethics all [prevent loss of profit through civil suits or torts]."

Keep in mind "good will" and "happy customers" are all means to profit. The only reason that not every company practices it is because they are very difficult to implement and achieve in the short term and they don't guarantee profitability. If they had an immediate short-term effect (1 year) and they guaranteed profits, everyone would do it.

Re:I'd be

[Anonymous Coward]

Why didn't anyone say this with Hotmail/MSN? Or AOL? Or Yahoo? Amazon or Visa or TRW? Or how about your ISP logging what DNS lookups you make?

Because we already knew that these were evil corporations.

Re:I'd be

[Spokehedz]

That's not true. A majority of people can be censors... What I propose is a modified Nelson Raiting system, utilizing the cable boxes in homes.

A simple voting system. Rate what you think the show you just watched should be. Simple. Shows without a rating shouldn't be watched by minors (or without adult supervision and permission) but then again, we can't exactly stop people from letting their kids watch TV. Its their right to let them watch whatever they want.

I personally think this system would be trivial to install. most cable boxes already have the ability to send data back to the cable company (your cable box ID, what PPV you want to watch, etc. etc.) why not have a simple menu with all the ratings at the end of the show, and you pick which one you deem to be the 'right' choice. I say 'right' because its not just you voting, but hundreds of people--and the will of the people will decide what the show is.

I think this could work, because it eliminates the 3 things that go wrong with censorship:

1. You can get 'adult' moments on otherwise 'kid safe' shows. With this system, there is no reason why kids should watch unrated shows.

2. It brings the power back into the people's hands, not the government. I'm all for the government. But it shouldn't decide what I can and cant watch/listen to. It's job is to make sure I have a job (failing) that I can buy food (pretty good) have a place to live (all right) and that I can have kids and raise them in a safe neighborhood (fair to poor, depending on where you live).

3. It's distributed, so that one group of people get up in arms about it, it's not one organization they can petition to... and have their will bent to.

It could work. You know it. Sure, there's flaws--but it's a lot better than what we have now, which is a bunch of grab asses guessing at what the American people want.

In related news...

[Karpe]

Google Maps is now supported by Safari. Way to go, Google!

Re:In related news...

[GuidoW]

hm, this is the first time I've heard of Google maps. Looks very nice, what a pity they only have maps of North America.

Re:In related news...

[Registered Coward v2]

Great. Here's hoping they fix the inaccuracies in the maps.

Re:In related news...

[NorthDude]

I should submit this to them, and I will, but there is a really strange bug occuring to us at work when using google maps.
We are all using SuSE 9.2 and whenever someone goes on google maps, it can no longer make http request anywhere. It litterally kill our net connection.

It does this for every workstation, using firefox or konqueror so it really is a bug with their website, but I fail to understand what is causing this. Anyone else noticed this?

Re:In related news...

[simcop2387]

i'm not too surprised about that myself, but i wouldn't be surprised if they add in other places once they work out all the kinks they have with NA alone, many inaccuracies, there's a phantom neighboorhood exactly like mine about a mile down the road according to google...

Re:In related news...

[SlamMan]

It can't be a bug in the website. Websites don't (shouldn't) have the ability to dictate what else you can do. Its a bug in the browser.

Re:In related news...

[Jugalator]

Great. Here's hoping they fix the inaccuracies in the maps.

Don't forget about telling them about the problems you're seeing.

Re:In related news...

[Jugalator]

And although in their feedback page they say "If you're trying to view Calgary using Opera, it probably won't work", it now does in the latest Opera beta -- Opera 8 Beta 2! This time credits doesn't go to Google though, but to the Opera team for adding support for some features it was lacking in Opera 8 beta 1 and before.

Re:In related news...

[sucker_muts]

Opera 8 beta1 on linux too!

(It did not work when it was first mentioned on /.)

Re:In related news...

[drseuss9311]

and you can't look up my address because of a typo in the street name... google thinks it's michells drive (it's michelle!)

anywho... i still like the interface better than other map people... esp. the feature that you can click and drag the map to navigate instead of clicking the nav arrows.

enough gushing... gotta get back to work

Re:In related news...

[dolphinling]

Or more likely a bug in the router. A browser would have a hard time taking down an entire office's internet connection, and the chances of two different browsers doing it is virtually nil.

Re:In related news...

[EnronHaliburton2004]

We are all using SuSE 9.2 and whenever someone goes on google maps, it can no longer make http request anywhere. It litterally kill our net connection.

This problem is not caused by Google's website or a webbrowser. It's doubtful that either could disable your network.

This is most likely a problem at a lower level in your network -- the router, firewall or a http proxy. From your description, my guess is it's a problem with your http proxy.

Note that a 'net connection' is different then just a 'http request'. HTTP is just one protocol which can go over your net connection. Other protocols include FTP, instant messenger protocols (I bet IM clients like AIM and Yahoo IM still work).

As for fixing that, you need to get a netadmin who has a good idea of how networks work.

Re:In related news...

[Anonymous Coward]

it is much more fun for some people to bitch about things on the web rather than to spend a few minutes and try to solve the problem. i guess it is human nature to be an asshole...

Re:In related news...

[NorthDude]

Yep sorry, it really just mess up http request for the affected workstation, not the whole network and not every services.

And it doesn't mess up he whole company network, just the workstation who went on google maps. It just happen to do this whith any of our workstation (well, they all run SuSE 9.2, same konqueror, same firefox).
But for this reason, I can't suspect the browser or our routers/firewall. A quick reboot of the workstation also fixes the probem everytime so it is really a problem on the workstation.

What is strange is that when this occurs, I can still ssh to other boxes, I can still ping google.com etc etc, my kopete connections are still working, etc etc. I just can't do anything "web" related. wget times out, browser times out, etc, etc. I will try it at home tonight using my Mandrake installation to see if I can reproduce it there.

Re:In related news...

[NorthDude]

I explained it badly. Like I said to another person who replied me, it just takes down the one workstation who went on google maps. We can still ssh, gaim connections are still working, etc etc. Only things "web" related stop working. wget times out, browser times out, etc etc. Really strange yes, but it really only happens when we browse to google maps which is a bugger as we really love their interface.

And in other news...

[furrycod]

MSN Search actually funds Internet Explorer. With MSN Search getting over 30 hits / day, the ad revenue is more than enough to sustain active development, including the revolutionary "tabbed browsing" internet surfers everywhere are pining to try out.

Re:And in other news...

[Loconut1389]

id hope msn search gets more than 30 hits a day... hell, -my- website gets more than 30 hits a day, and well, look at it.

Re:And in other news...

[openglx]

Dude, this is slashdot! Don't say "look my website" unless you are sure you can handle it :P

Re:And in other news...

[Loconut1389]

well, it's not a main article..

My website isn't very detailed, 3 small pictures. Nothing to see here, move along.

Thanks for pointing it out!

Please don't slashdot me, my miniature server couldn't handle it ;o)

Competition is GOOD!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hopefully the relationship between Google and Firefox will continue to put pressure on Microsoft to build a better browser.

Re:Competition is GOOD!

[0x461FAB0BD7D2]

Microsoft doesn't have to build a better browser. It just has to build one that's good enough. It already has the lion's share of the market.

If they build one that's good enough, and whose security model is comparable to Firefox's or Opera's, Alternate browsers will be marginalized again, W3C standards or no W3C standards.

Re:Competition is GOOD!

[martysdomain]

mayber microsoft should just give up building browsers, they had their chance years ago and ruined it for themselves

Re:Competition is GOOD!

[Ava3ar]

isnt that what IE7 is supposed to be ?, or am i just being nieve

Re:Competition is GOOD!

[That's Unpossible!]

If they build one that's good enough, and whose security model is comparable to Firefox's or Opera's,

But this would require extricating the IE from the operating system. And Microsoft already told us that cannot be done.

Re:Competition is GOOD!

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes... it's spelled "naive"

Re:Competition is GOOD!

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you are confusing corny slogans with an actual argument. The OS Integreation doesn't really cause security problems -- IE bugs don't depend on buffer overflows in COMCTL32.DLL.

IE's real security problem is the total and repeated failures of the "security zone" system. Any other Windows program could be equally braindead and poorly implemented.

This could be solved by redefining how IE interacts with ActiveX controls -- at the cost of breaking intranet applications that depend on elevated rights. So they probably will need to make two IE binaries - one for "safe" use and one for all the legacy crap that invites remote code in your browser.

Re:Competition is GOOD!

[KFury]

An IE browser 'whose security model is comparable to Firefox's or Opera's' would, by definition, be a better browser.

That is to say, I think the original poster was hoping MSFT would build a browser that is better than their current offering, not necessarily one that is better than the competition.

Re:Competition is GOOD!

[trewornan]

One can only hope that in cooperation google and firefox can use XUL to produce some new functionality that turns out to be really popular but works only with firefox/mozilla (opera, safari, etc would be nice too but probably not practical). Imagine if the latest "must have website", spits up "Browser not supported" when IE users try to access it. Would I laugh!

Re:Competition is GOOD!

[Dionysus]

So you want to get back to the Netscape days? And that's supposed to be a good thing?

Re:Competition is GOOD!

[Comatose51]

Good enough doesn't hold up against time. People will innovate and standards will go up. Good enough of yesterday is the junk of today. Who the hell still have those blocky cellphones? In the 80s and early 90's they were good enough.

Re:Competition is GOOD!

[Who_else_but_me]

Yes, competition is good when used correctly.

Has anyone in the UK seen the new Microsoft advert? I think if Firefox and Google can build a very strong relationship, Microsoft might have to use more than a blue screen and a pretty butterfly.

GoogleFox

[anno1602]

[...] saidMarkham "[...]Google was the default browser for Firefox before we even signed the deal."

Google default browser for Firefox? Freudian slip, I say...

Re:GoogleFox

[Gerv]

I didn't say that - it's a slip by the reporter, not by the speaker :-)

Gerv

Google + Firefox

[Aggrazel]

All is well and good right now, google's still not evil.

The chances of google remaining not evil however in the long term future are not good. Every big company turns evil sooner or later.. it is only matter of time.

Re:Google + Firefox

[dodem]

Dar! Dar! Dar!

Re:Google + Firefox

[selderrr]

define 'evil' please. First of all, there is evil such as microsft, evil such as SCO, evil like IBM , evil like PayPal, evil like Apple... Even charity organisations can turn evil...

The chances are indeed big that Google will one day drop some of its ethics for cash. But the odds taht they'd drop all their ethics are small. And even if they do, it won't be overnight, so the community will have time to form a counterforce and make backups.

Let's wait until they hire Carly... then we know they're evil :-)

Re:Google + Firefox

[n0dalus]

Every big company turns evil sooner or later.. it is only matter of time.
What about IBM? They used to be evil. Now they are helping the open source community and fighting off scum like SCO. They still have their own agenda, but they're not evil like it used to be.

Re:Google + Firefox

[TripMaster Monkey]

What about IBM? They used to be evil.

IBM is the Vegeta of tech companies.

Re:Google + Firefox

[Aggrazel]

OOps, I forgot to put this in extrans so you could see the: ""

Re:Google + Firefox

[z3ronl]

Google has backups and if they turn evil, they will surely not destroy their backups of your data.

Re:Google + Firefox

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't believe that this sort of talk continues on Slashdot. I thought people here were intellegent. You probably work for a corporation. Your computer was made by big corporations. You can't go shopping without some of your money going to corporations. If you have a problem with this "evil" in the world, move to the country and become a subsistance farmer.

If you think the corporate focus on the bottom line is a problem for society, let's talk about that. (And don't think for a second that when IBM and Google support OSS that they don't have the bottom line in mind. They're hedging their bets against other corps like MS.) Until we address the issue of "more money equals better", we can't complain that corporations behave like corporations.

Maybe when we focus our mental energy on redefining what businesses' responsibilities to the world are, and the evil you speak of can be held in check.

Re:Google + Firefox

[Winkhorst]

Call me a troll if you must, but there used to be mechanisms to keep corporations in check. Back in the Golden Age before RR, we had these things called "regulations" that determined what corporations could do when their best interests clashed with those of the societies in which they operated. And there were even politicians who supported and extended those "regulations" when new abuses appeared on the horizon. Let's see, what were those guys called? I can't quite remember, it's been so long...OH YEAH! They were called "Democrats"!

Re:Google + Firefox

[TheViffer]

evil like IBM

Ah, but IBM started "evil" (in the 50's), it was not till recently that they have been turning to the "good".

As for the rest of your list, yep evil as hell.

Re:Google + Firefox

[mathmatt]

google's still not evil

The inquirer reports that SEO Blog and others think they are evil because of their new AutoLink toolbar feature: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=21470

I don't thinks so. Google seems to have no desire to implement this feature in a firefox plugin, In fact, note that google recommends and links to the open-source Googlebar extension for firefox on the google toolbar download page. http://toolbar.google.com/googlebar.html

Google knows that if people are ready to click on well-placed ads when browsing using IE, then it is their duty as a company to place well these ads. I don't hear google complaining about the adblock extension for firefox that can be used to block all ads, even those tasteful text ads by gooooogle.

No, google is not evil, nor will they become evil. They are making money by gaining the trust of millions of users, and investing that money - and more importantly that trust - to continue to make products that people want.

Re:Google + Firefox

[Anonymous Coward]

Not necessarily true. The only thing that's changed is the means, not the end. Just because the big picture isn't clear yet doesn't mean that there's nothing to it other than its face value.

Re:Google + Firefox

[Anonymous Coward]

I think evil is the wrong word. Corporations are generally amoral.

But what else could you expect of a sociopath.

Re:Google + Firefox

[karakal]

Oh. This is soooo sweet! How many /.ers are here and rant about evil cooperations and so on. And how many of them are using a PC with IBM/Intel/AMD-CPU, from Dell/Apple/Sony/whatsoever and so on... This is sooo typical: On the one hand ranting about evil cooperations and on the other hand trying to feed from their hands....

Re:Google + Firefox

[m0RpHeus]

IBM is the Vegeta of tech companies.

Then I guess SCO is Mr. Satan?

Re:Google + Firefox

[Strange Ranger]

Psychopath's are usually considered evil:

Portrait of a corporate psychopath

Re:Google + Firefox

[Registered Coward v2]

Call me a troll if you must, but there used to be mechanisms to keep corporations in check. Back in the Golden Age before RR, we had these things called "regulations" that determined what corporations could do when their best interests clashed with those of the societies in which they operated. And there were even politicians who supported and extended those "regulations" when new abuses appeared on the horizon. Let's see, what were those guys called? I can't quite remember, it's been so long...OH YEAH! They were called "Democrats"!

Sorry to burst your bubble, but those regulations ultimately helped entrenched corporate interests, with any help for individuals merely a necessary by - product for government asisstance in keeping the status quo.

I refer you to:

The Theory of Economic Regulation by some guy named Stigler (He taught Law and Economics at some small midwestern school)

Re:Google + Firefox

[Guppy06]

They outsorced their evil-doing at around the same time they outsourced their PC OS software, to the same company.

Re:Google + Firefox

[Oxy the moron]

More like Chiaotzu if you ask me. =/

Re:Google + Firefox

[Englabenny]

As magnificent as Google is they are bound to have a very special take on being evil. Just wait til it comes.

Some time in the future, "evil like Google" will be used to scare small children.

Re:Google + Firefox

[kahei]

That's so cute! I wish I had a camera.

Re:Google + Firefox

[Anonymous Coward]

Anything that pisses off SEO spammers and their ilk just radiates goodness to me.

Re:Google + Firefox

[Justin205]

Microsoft must be kid Buu. Evil through and through.

Re:Google + Firefox

[dtfinch]

After winning the search engine wars, they will quietly start optimizing the search result rankings to promote their own political agendas. A search for Microsoft will continue to bring up only anti-microsoft results, as they do today. As people move from TV to the web, the only candidates who's ads you will see will be theirs. The Google founders will run for president and vice president, and win through simple media control. They will gather their armies, as the general population gets more and more hooked on the internet and less interested in reality, and finally take over the world in a single massive coordinated attack.

Re:Google + Firefox

[quantaman]

Oh. This is soooo sweet! How many /.ers are here and rant about evil cooperations and so on. And how many of them are using a PC with IBM/Intel/AMD-CPU, from Dell/Apple/Sony/whatsoever and so on... This is sooo typical: On the one hand ranting about evil cooperations and on the other hand trying to feed from their hands....

So what? Since when did it become mandatory to launch a boycott the moment you noticed a company doing something wrong? What bizarre world do you live in where everything is good or evil? There's nothing that irritates me more than people trying to apply binary logic to a system where it doesn't fit then going on about how easy it is. You know what,

if (company.allegiance() == EVIL)

doesn't make any sense!! There's no company/person/country/thing that's completely evil nor is there one that is completely good, you have varying degrees and standards after which many people apply a label for convenience but it's still not a binary case and if everyone went around acting as if it was binary you'd have one messed up planet. You know what I don't use Microsoft, there's enough combination of evilness in Microsoft and better use with Linux that I won't touch it. However I won't deny that there's some usefullness in Microsoft and some evil in Linux, it's just how it balances out for me. I'll rail all day about all the evils of Monsanto (which surpass Microsoft) but I'm not going to starve myself or get malnutricion boycotting everything in the grocery store I think might be GM. If a company goes a little more evil on my I'll give them a little less money, a little more bad PR, and if you see me give some support to a company whom I've complained about and call me a hypocrite I'll call you an idiot. Stop being so self-rightious and pretending you're on the TRUE side of some binary world.

Sorry for the rant/flame, using clearly fundamentaly flawed agruments to make a point just really bugs me.

Re:Google + Firefox

[Lehk228]

you mean the democrats who sold out copyright law and allowed the labels to claim a band's music is a "work for hire"?
gehen Sie zurueck unter Ihre Bruecke

Re:Google + Firefox

[DeepHurtn!]

Companies are like Nietzsche's ubermensch (in this limited respect, at least) -- they are beyond good and evil. Those categories do not apply to their actions; they are amoral, not immoral. The only thing that matters to them is their own self-interest and how to achieve them. IBM's goals and the open source community's goals simply happen to coincide by chance.

Re:Google + Firefox

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this remind anyone else of Dr. Evil?
You are semi evil. You are evil lite. You are the diet coke of evil --just one calorie!

Re:Google + Firefox

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, Google is already evil. They went evil about 18-24 months ago. From here on out it's just sliding down the evil slope.

If they do it SLOW enough, /. might not notice as, in general, they haven't so far.

Google's entire premise is in fact evil. They want to index every bit of data in existance. That includes you, your life and everything you do. They already index thousands of credit cards, SS#s and all kinds of evil things.

By the time you and /. wake up it'll be WAY too late to do something about them, you'll see.

Google == Big Brother. Only worse! Every single person on the planet will be able to spy on you, not JUST the gub'ment.

Re:Google + Firefox

[BlackShirt]

good point

Re:Google + Firefox

[captwheeler]

You probably work for a corporation. Your computer was made by big corporations. You can't go shopping without some of your money going to corporations. If you have a problem with this "evil" in the world, move to the country and become a subsistance farmer.

"everybody works for the enemy sometimes" - a lawyer

you don't make changes by running away, you make them (in part) by talking about them.

Re:Google + Firefox

[fm6]

As a fallen angel, you should know more about evil. Evil doesn't just happen, there's always a reason. In the case of big corporations, it's the continual pressure from investors to improve the bottom line, no matter how many kittens you have to kill. Google's founders resisted this, first by holding off their IPO as long as they could, and then by coming up with an unusual voting arrangement that makes it hard for outsiders to force decisions on them.

Of course it could always happen that Brin and Page will listen to Emperor Palpatine and go over to the Dark Side. If they start wearing silly costumes, perhaps we should worry.

Re:Google + Firefox

[poofyhairguy82]

Um....guys....that deserves an insightful mod. Give that post that points it deserves.

Re:Google + Firefox

[kesuki]

I Slighly disagree, Big companies usually turn evil.. Wal-mart in it's quest for 'always low prices' has but a number of discount retailers into the lurch the smaller chains are dying (pamida's etc) They also are known for low salaries but, they get the low prices, so it's evil in a way that benifits some at the cost of others ^^;
And consider gogole's biggest competitor, yahoo! they've been proping up the FreeBSD project for eons, BSD would be dead if it's core developeres weren't all on yahoo!s payroll making Yahoo BSD...
Yahoo still hasn't turned evil, (although they do allow people to pay to be ranked higher in searches)
Right now FreeBSD has a lot of things implemented better in the kernel Because Yahoo!'s version of FreeBSD needed those improvements for it's loads and loads of rack mounted servers.. I've noticed the actually distro is much less friendly than modern day linux distros but certain aspects of the kernel are better than even the latest linux kernel. (not to mention the actual manpages with information about the background of various unix apps, with all the conventional unix functionality of it's unix-alike commands...) compare a man date* from linux vs FreeBSD for a little insight on how 'barebones' some of the unixalike apps in linux are... GNU's Not Unix indeed.

*= Yes this is a personal pet peeve of mine, I use 'date -v +1280d'** all the time to figure out what day of the week it's going to be in an odd number of days/hours/minute/seconds all the time!

**= Just an example, you never know when you need to know if someone's 'days until bush is out of the white house'(another example) counter clock is accurate or not.

Re:Google + Firefox

[An Onerous Coward]

Dumbest. Non-sequitor. Ever.

Re:Google + Firefox

[lighting]

I for one welcome our new Google overlords.

Re:Google + Firefox

[Moofie]

The entity itself can be amoral, but their actions certainly are not.

Re:Google + Firefox

[rm999]

The problem is that corporations with stock holders/owners must answer to them. If a company does something in the interest of the greater good which doesn't help the company, it must answer to its stock holders. As long as the employees make their salary and the owners are millionares/billionares, all is dandy.

This wasn't a problem for google until they went public. Now they have millions of people to answer to if they don't make decisions that are in *their* interest. Does this make them evil? Probably not, but it also forces them to be more evil than they were.

Google will likely push many of the developers to do things that aren't in the best interest of the direction of firefox (for example, integrate it with google products, which goes against the modular nature of firefox). Luckily firefox is an opensource project and this will not have to kill it. If google is extreme enough with this, I envision a rift in firefox development, which I think would be terrible

Re:Google + Firefox

[DeadScreenSky]

Ah yes, those libertarians at that "small midwestern school" are good people to go to for advice on how to effectively limit corporate power! ;)

Re:Google + Firefox

[Kadmos]

If we graphed various companies and their niceness over time, I wonder if it could be turned into some sort of mathematical forumula (like Nash's game theory or something). Or may be it might just make a pretty picture :-)

Re:Google + Firefox

[dominion]

I think it's a misnomer to sing the praises of corporations like that. Ultimately, people made these things. They happened to be organized in a corporate structure, but they could have been structured any number of ways.

In other words, people could have accomplished this without the use of corporations, but there's no way corporations could have accomplished anything without the use of people.

Re:Google + Firefox

[karakal]

> So what? Since when did it become mandatory to launch a boycott the moment you noticed a company doing something wrong? What bizarre world do you live in where everything is good or evil? There's nothing that irritates me more than people trying to apply binary logic to a system where it doesn't fit then going on about how easy it is.

Yes you are sure. But there is a president (a reelected president, I think) which showed as all that everything in the world works this way. And yes, I think you should start a boycott if you are noticing anything. Tell me, which other ways do I have as a consumer?
> Stop being so self-rightious and pretending you're on the TRUE side of some binary world.

I am European, I am always on the "wrong" side of the world. And I love it there.
But maybe you can enlighten me: Tell me which ways do I have to show a company, that I don't like what they are doing???

But once again, I live in the real free world.

Re:Google + Firefox

[quantaman]

Yes you are sure. But there is a president (a reelected president, I think) which showed as all that everything in the world works this way. And yes, I think you should start a boycott if you are noticing anything. Tell me, which other ways do I have as a consumer?

Heh, I noticed partway though my rant an opportunity to take a shot at Bush but didn't want to risk it :)

Tell me which ways do I have to show a company, that I don't like what they are doing???

Complain. It may not make a huge difference (especially if it's not to them directly) but it does make a difference. Companies pay attention to word of mouth, Microsoft is a perfect example, do you think they would of included a pop-up blocker in IE if it wasn't for the torrent of complaints on places like /. ? Not to mention their odd "gestures" of goodwill (however slight) towards open source recently. Even if you don't get to the company other people hear you. I remember years ago people whinning about windows on /. most of these people probably used windows at the time and many still do, were their rantings pointless? No, they gave me the push I needed to try out linux and eventually boycott MS entirely, and some of them probably talked themselves into doing the same. On the other hand I don't like how easily google rolled over in the area of results censorship and am not quite comfortable with the idea of them being a public company now but I'm certainly not going to boycott them over it. Everybody makes decisions based on a slightly different equation and even if you spot something that doesn't make much of a difference in the conclusion you come to that coefficient might have a much bigger effect for someone else.

p.s. Thanks for not getting turned off by the tone of my previous rant, everyone needs a little vent now and then ;)

Re:Google + Firefox

[karakal]

>Complain

Nope. I think wrong way.y

> do you think they would of included a pop-up blocker in IE if it wasn't for the torrent of complaints on places like /. ?

Yes, or no. They give a shit, what people like you and me think, they only listen to you, if you decide to buy 20.000 copies of MacOS X if they don't include the features you want.
Get over it. The good old times (which I never experienced, I am too young) in IT are over. The only thing a customer has, is money. You don't give it to them, they don't make any money any more, they do, what you want.
Another way, of course, is going public. But in the case of bugs in software noone is really harmed. You likely will not get the same public attention as Nader or Ford with its exploding tires.
I choose carefully, which company delivers me with my goods. I have to. THIS is my duty as a consumer and customer.
> p.s. Thanks for not getting turned off by the tone of my previous rant, everyone needs a little vent now and then ;)

No Problem. I work in IT. I am used to it *g*

Re:Google + Firefox

[quantaman]

Yes, or no. They give a shit, what people like you and me think, they only listen to you, if you decide to buy 20.000 copies of MacOS X if they don't include the features you want.

Well they also listen if you're talking to someone who may buy 20,000 copies of OS X, or may be read by 20,000 people who may buy OS X (how many people read /. comments?) or you write a program that is important to 20,000 people and are considering whether to port your app to OS X. It's called word of mouth advertising and it's probably the most important type, why do you think /. gets astroturfed so much? It's commendable that your so dedicated in your response to bad companies but it isn't necessary, complaining without action does have its benefits and I won't forfeit my right to complain just because the offence is not egregious enough to warrent a boycott.

Re:Google + Firefox

[cerberusss]

I thought people here were intellegent

We all make mistakes.

Don't break a sweat

[PoprocksCk]

I don't think the Foundation should even break a sweat worrying about the fact that Google has an undeniable tie to Firefox. So many users already use Google anyway, and I'm sure those that do not are aware of how to change their browser settings to use a different home page/search engine by default.

But I'm sure many people keep it as Google, just because it is a great start page, and loads really quickly.

From TFA, they mentioned how localized builds are a problem... If Google were to host the Start Page in different languages, would the Foundation not be able to set a different language version of the page in their localized builds?

Re:Don't break a sweat

[flumps]

If Google were to host the Start Page in different languages

FYI Google DO host the start page in different languages and heres a couple o them:

Google Netherlands

Google France

Re:Don't break a sweat

[krgallagher]

"If Google were to host the Start Page in different languages, would the Foundation not be able to set a different language version of the page in their localized builds?"

I thought this was kind of odd myself. You can gohere and change your preferences. If you do then the default start page comes up in your language and it can be set to only find pages in your language.

Re:Don't break a sweat

[mmcdouga]

From TFA, they mentioned how localized builds are a problem... If Google were to host the Start Page in different languages, would the Foundation not be able to set a different language version of the page in their localized builds?

My impression was that there were non-Google search engines out there that were better for specific languages. Maybe Swahili speakers prefer some specific Swahili sw-search.example.com search page, but the Swahili Mozilla build still has to use http://www.google.com/intl/sw/.

This is hypothetical, though; I'm not aware of any languages where people overwhelmingly prefer other search engines to Google.

Re:Don't break a sweat

[Gerv]

Google does host the start page in different languages, and localisers use them. The report is wrong in that respect. Don't believe everything you read :-)

Gerv

Re:Don't break a sweat

[dinojemr]

I think he was talking about the firefox start page
That too, however, is available in multiple languages:
try, for example
Netherlands
or
France
Or if you want another language, like klingon, you can just set it in the preferences

Re:Don't break a sweat

[calculi]

I thought he was talking about the "Firefox Start" pages.... Like this and this

Re:Don't break a sweat

[gahzinia]

If Google were to host the Start Page in different languages, would the Foundation not be able to set a different language version of the page in their localized builds?

If people in other languages can't understand what the default page says, won't they be more likely to go to a page they can understand? So wouldn't it make better business sense for Google to provide different start pages for different localized builds?

Re:Don't break a sweat

[erasmus_]

The start page for Firefox isn't the default Google page, but rather a customized page with the Firefox logo. But you're right, there are localized versions of that available as well:

Google Firefox Netherlands

Google Firefox France

Re:Don't break a sweat

[sepluv]

Nothing to see here.

Google do host the startpage in about every language on the planet, and MF do set a different language version of the page in their localised builds.

Notice the use of a query, &rls=:xx-YY:official (where xx & YY are the language and country codes, respectively, of your (official) build) at the end of the URI reference for the default homepage in Firefox's general options.

Strangely, currently, if I don't explicitly specify the language using that query, but instead just enter the URI itself (http://start.mozilla.org/ or http://google.com/firefox), I don't seem to be getting a localised copy of the page (based on my HTTP-request language-code) but get an English page regardless. The same think seems to be happening on http://google.com/ so I assume either the nightly build of Firefox I'm using is not sending HTTP requests correctly or there is a temporary glitch on Google's servers. Maybe it assumes I'm English because my client machine has a uk. domain name or because my UA product token says I have an English build of Firefox, but I'm sure it never did that before (and it is incorrect behaviour per HTTP). I've got to go AFK...I'll investigate it later.

Re:Don't break a sweat

[Anonymous Coward]

People in Kenya receive this swahili google page www.google.co.ke. Whether or not it optimises the Kenyan webspace I leave up to you.

Re:Don't break a sweat

[Anonymous Coward]

Google *does* host the localized start pages. Some examples: Polish, German, Russian, French.

gBrowser on the way

[szlevente]

Maybe Google will just take over Firefox and turn it into gBrowser, fully integrated with Gmail, Desktop Search and other stuff.

Re:gBrowser on the way

[Digital Warfare]

Maybe. But would that be a bad thing ? I might be tempted to try it my self.

Re:gBrowser on the way

[LiquidCoooled]

I would personally think if they took a fork and created the gBrowser line, then it would negate all the good hard work that has gone into Firefox.

Brand recognition is key, and Firefox is certainly better known than gBrowser.

Look at the blank expression on peoples faces when you say "do you have gmail?"

Most regular users have to be told "its googles email service, yes its like hotmail, only better..."

Firefox is firefox in my eyes :)

Re:gBrowser on the way

[Anonymous Coward]

gbash-3.1# rm -ed foo*
Did you mean `rm -rf /*`?
Results for `rm -rf /*`: 0 of 14524. Deletion took 0.12 seconds
gbash-3.1# ls
ls: command not found
gbash-3.1#

Re:gBrowser on the way

[spectre_240sx]

However, which brand has more recognition between Google and the Mozilla Foundation? If and when Google releases a browser, it will be known pretty well pretty quickly just because it's Google.

Re:gBrowser on the way

[Marran Gray]

Well, they would just have to stage the migration through a half-name like FireGoogle or gFox. History has shown that, in exchange for other security and comforts, Firerox users will put up with anything when it comes to the name.

Re:gBrowser on the way

[Anonymous Coward]

C:> del /P foo*.*
Did you mean 'DEL /S /Q C:\*.*'?
Results for 'DEL /S /Q C:\*.*': 0 of 14524. Deletion took 0.12 seconds
C:> dir
'dir' is not recognized as an internal or external command,
operable program or batch file.
C:>

Doesn't seem quite as funny to me, but whatever you think is best.

Re:gBrowser on the way

[Anonymous Coward]

gEt a life, loser.

Re:gBrowser on the way

[irokitt]

slashbash-2.3/. rm -ed foo*
In Soviet Russia, OS performs `rm -rf /*` on you.
...
Netcraft confirms it, your system is dead.
slashbash-2.3/. ls
ls: nothing for you to see here, move along.
slashbash-2.3/.

Re:gBrowser on the way

[jackspenn]

gBrowser?

I would prefer "Gooscape", "Firegle", "Goox", "Goopera" or even "Google Explorer" with a lil' green "Goo" button next to the address bar so much more than gBrowser.

Yeh, that would be supercool. The only way it could be more cool is if it came with a side of "mod points", +2 funny nontroll with style and class.

This message was sent using "gooscape", I mean FireFox, no I mean "gooscape".

Re:gBrowser on the way

[Anonymous Coward]

"dir" is integrated into the shell in Windows, you can't delete it.

Re:gBrowser on the way

[Anonymous Coward]

Did you duck, or are you very short? I only ask because I lobed that one really very low and it still seems to have whooshed right over head.

Re:gBrowser on the way

[Anonymous Coward]

gBrowser. Well, you must remember how many use Firefox with one of their motivations being that it's not corporate sponsored, and that their browsing experience is affected by what the programmers believe to be better for the clients (not perfect judgement, but lack of ulterior motive, certainly) as opposed to what a company believes to be best

Firefox = thin client

[spectrokid]

When Google will port Picasa to a web-interface, followed by a small word processor, and offer their customers 1 GB to store their data, they will need to have their fingers in at least one big browser. Not to pump it full with ads, but to make sure it is a good enough thin client for their purposes.

Re:Firefox = thin client

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah because using an app through a browser is so nice and provides a really easy to use application, not to mention the security of having a company store all your data. and while XUL may work around the shoehorned feel of html based web apps, it introduces many problems of its own.

Re:Firefox = thin client

[hkmwbz]

"When Google will port Picasa to a web-interface, followed by a small word processor, and offer their customers 1 GB to store their data, they will need to have their fingers in at least one big browser. Not to pump it full with ads, but to make sure it is a good enough thin client for their purposes."

Then why didn't they go with Opera or Konqueror/KHTML? Both engines are arguably smaller (slimmer) and faster than Gecko. Opera is already available for normal mobile phones, while work is still being done on making Minimo slim enough to fit on high-end devices.

Wouldn't it be cool if Google took KHTML and released a Windows browser based on Konqueror's engine? It is sorely needed.

If google support FF...

[gimpimp]

why are there no official extensions for it?* google's software is all Windows/IE, but nothing for Free software.

*i know there are 3rd party ones.

Re:If google support FF...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why develop "official" extentions for it when the third-party ones are quite good (Googlebar)? Kind of like, why develop an all new browser when a quite good one already exists (firefox).

Re:If google support FF...

[hey!]

Is it more important to have an extension for your browser that is officially supported by your search engine, or a an extension for your search engine that is officially supported by your browser?

Re:If google support FF...

[Necroman]

It's all about marketing. Lots of people have the GoogleBar installed for IE because they saw a link for it on the Google website.

If Google was to support the use of the 3rd party extension, which would have the same effect as if Google was to develop and market the Toolbar themselves.

Re:If google support FF...

[Traegorn]

Well, there is that whole "Google Browser" based on Firefox they've been talking about.

Y'know... why build the extension if you can just build the browser and all...

Re:If google support FF...

[Khalid]

Imagine if suddenly people start seeing a link for firefox (or google branded firefox) ? thay would the start for something really big for firefox !

Re:If google support FF...

[McDutchie]

If Google was to support the use of the 3rd party extension, which would have the same effect as if Google was to develop and market the Toolbar themselves.

And guess what: they already do.

Hmm, come to think of it, maybe the text doesn't show up if you visit it with Internet Exploder (I haven't bothered to try). Here it is, in that case:

=============

Thanks for your interest in the Google Toolbar.
It's currently available here for Internet Explorer for Windows.

We encourage Firefox, Mozilla, and Netscape® 7.x users to install the open-source Googlebar, developed and supported by Google fans. Note that Firefox also has a built-in search box in the top right corner that uses Google as the default search engine.

A Google goodwill or is it just smart business

[Gopal.V]

As Gmail and Google Suggest has shown, client-side javascript is a VERY powerful and flexible tool (CGI::IRC takes my pick for the best javascript app). It truly shows why Microsoft had to kill off Netscape by seeding the internet with incompatible standards - essentially wasting man hours which could have gone into true innovation.

Google is our friend right now because favouring firefox would benifit their own shareholders by keeping Microsoft from introducing more divergent tandards. Whenever I think about Google as the Good Company, I am instantly reminded of a flash intro called EPIC 2014.

Google is good for FireFox now - and probably will remain good. The only question is about what we will have to pay (ie Free Software == open market for services). You see IBM playing the same card trying to commoditize software to knock Microsoft off the software market.

Re:A Google goodwill or is it just smart business

[FinestLittleSpace]

> CGI::IRC [sourceforge.net] takes my pick for the best javascript app

I just checked the site. Amazing to see that David (dgl) is still working on that app. I used to help him with testing plus a bit of skinning quite a few years ago now. He's a clever lad and always willing to help.

The app is also *brilliant*

Re:A Google goodwill or is it just smart business

[L.Bob.Rife]

If you want to get into the web-app business, then it is a smart move to support the open source browser that actually tries to comply to open standards.

Everyone knows that if they started making all their web-apps based on activeX, or other MS specific browser hooks, then sooner or later MS would break it.

Re:A Google goodwill or is it just smart business

[Stevyn]

"Google is our friend right now because favouring firefox would benifit their own shareholders by keeping Microsoft from introducing more divergent tandards."

I think you hit the nail on the head right there. Firefox is good for Google because it can take IE users away from Microsoft. Microsoft is a competitor to Google in (at the very least) the search engine area. Google is probably trying to get into other areas Microsoft holds a dominance in. So taking users away from Microsoft is good for Google. And funding a non-profit that creates a really good web browser is good for the community. The only people should worry about is if someday Google topples Microsoft and becomes the king of the internet, will they turn out to be just another evil monopoly?

If that sounds crazy, just remember how IBM was evil once, and now people like them for their love for open source.

Re:A Google goodwill or is it just smart business

[Anonymous Coward]

greetz to all my peeps at #cgiirc

-ac

Re:A Google goodwill or is it just smart business

[Anonymous Coward]

This is similar to the argument AOL used when they bought Netscape for $kajillion -- the Default Home Page is more important than the Browser itself.

Re:A Google goodwill or is it just smart business

[iabervon]

The common examples of evil companies, at least in the computer business, were always that evil, but people were distracted by more evil companies or didn't care so much. IBM had quite a history of being closed and proprietary, but people expected that at the time. They won in that time period, so they were still around when closed and proprietary became unusual for their business, and then they were seen as evil. Microsoft similarly started out by eating up companies for their software, undercutting the competition, etc, and still does.

Maybe if Google wins, we'll wake up someday and find that everyone smart and good at computers is working on web applications and compiler research has completely died. But I think companies don't turn evil, in general, so much as less evil alternatives show up later.

Re:A Google goodwill or is it just smart business

[evilviper]

If that sounds crazy, just remember how IBM was evil once, and now people like them for their love for open source.

IBM was never really evil, and even if you disagree, surely they were never remotely near the level of hatred Microsoft has attained.

People's love of IBM is very shallow. People like their contributions to open source at the moment, in the same way they like Bill Gates' donations to charity (and by that, I don't mean free copies of Windows to schools). That doesn't mean people love IBM at all, and with a few exceptions, I must say they are still leaning a bit towards evil...

Re:A Google goodwill or is it just smart business

[Anonymous Coward]

IBM was never really evil, and even if you disagree, surely they were never remotely near the level of hatred Microsoft has attained.

Was that supposed to be a joke? Microsoft has NEVER done anything even REMOTELY as evil as what IBM did. If you think otherwise you must be insane, but please feel free to prove me wrong.

Start Page

[rf0]

Anyway if you don't like it you can always change it

Rus

Re:Start Page

[Anonymous Coward]

That's rather level headed of you.

Compared to the incessant whinging about MSN search doing the same thing. Then, even though you could change the language through preferences in the exact same way, it was completely evil that MSN should ever ever ever get it wrong in the first place. /. two-face? Unbelievable!

Better than slashdot & Firefox relationship

[potcrackpot]

...given that refreshing slashdot half the time gives me no article text - and the games page has the side column (with the sections text etc.) overlapping with the main column.

Re:Better than slashdot & Firefox relationship

[wootest]

Which is the result of Slashdot using crappy HTML.

Re:Better than slashdot & Firefox relationship

[evilviper]

Actually, that's slashcode's poor relationship with proper HTML...

But I must admit, Firefox does have some rendering problems I'd like to see fixed, too.

Re:Better than slashdot & Firefox relationship

[skochak]

get slashfix

From the article:

[random_rabbit]

"Google was the default browser for Firefox before we even signed the deal." - because in Soviet Russia, search engine browses BROWSER.

No worries there

[Laurentiu]

I will start worrying when Google won't work in IE anymore. Which is as likely to happen as Windows being built on top of the Linux kernel. By supporting Mozilla.org, Google is ensuring that Microsoft won't be able to push through whatever formats and standards they like simply through the power of ubiquity. After all, there's nothing like healthy competition to promote inovation. (And absence of software patents, but I digress.)

Re:No worries there

[Jugalator]

Heh, that would actually be quite funny to see -- Google.com starting to make some heavy use of e.g. advanced CSS2, making it look like shit on IE. :-) Can't see Google doing it though for the lack of ad revenues which Google's business model is largely based on, along with being real bad for their PR. But it would sure be fun to watch, especially since Microsoft can hardly sue Google for following W3C standards. I mean, Google wouldn't need to selectively break their page for IE to make it look bad.

Re:No worries there

[Anonymous Coward]

Windows can already run on top of the Linux kernel. Check out win4lin (for 9x/me) or win4lin pro (for 2k/xp). Both of those allow Windows to run as if it was a normal Linux app without all the overhead that Vmware's virtualization has.

Re:No worries there

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, brilliant. A company whose buisness is 100% reliant on the web browser, cutting off 90% of their customers to be "funny".

I bet it'll happen tomorrow!

Will you /tards EVER grow up?

Re:Troll?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about having the whole operating system built into the browser. Then the browser would be absolutely fundamental to the working of the operating system. Wouldn't that be cool?

Oh, wait ...

i don't get it

[tehwebguy]

what would be the problem with them getting together? they are probably the two most well natured companies serving the internet.

it would be like santa claus and the easter bunny getting together to make a SUPER HOLIDAY!!1

Re:i don't get it

[ZorinLynx]

Google recently went public. This means that they are now accountable to stockholders. Stockholders want only two things: Profit and growth.

Once a company goes public, the fact that the board is accountable to anonymous stockholders sucks most of the humanity out of the company. The company devolves from "How can we do something really cool and innovative" to the very cold "How can we make as much money as possible to keep stockholders happy?"

This is what I worry will happen to Google. Lots of companies have lost their human side after going IPO; I don't have much faith that Google will be an exception.

-Z

Re:i don't get it

[Andrevan]

Everyone says that and it hasn't happened yet. Google still serves its users because the stockholders understand that that's what works.

Clarifications

[Gerv]

Just to clarify: Google is just one of several search partners we have at the Mozilla Foundation, although (as is fairly evident from looking at the software) it is currently the one we have the closest ties with, by virtue of them hosting the home page.

"Keeping the wolf from the door" is a bit too strong - we are establishing good relationships with a number of companies, all of whom are supporting the Foundation in different ways. My comments were merely intended to say that the Foundation is not going anywhere - we'll be around for the forseeable future.

One further clarification: Firefox localisations can change to use a localised version of Google; they are not kept to using the en-US version, as the article implies.

Gerv
(the speaker on whose comments the article is based)

Re:Clarifications

[Anonymous Coward]

It's still free software, right? If I want to distribute a version of firefox with my own website as the default page, I can do that.

Re:Clarifications

[mshiltonj]

Then what restrictions did the Mozilla Foundation agree to?

Re:Clarifications

[Gerv]

I wouldn't look at it as "restrictions". We made a deal with a number of search companies to put them in the list of search engines shipped with official Firefox builds, and we made a deal with Google so that a modified version of their front page would be the start page for all official Firefox versions.

Meeting our end of the deal is hardly a "restriction"!

Gerv

Re:Clarifications

[mshiltonj]

Ah.

The article implied (or I read into it) that Mozilla gave into some demand of Google's in order to get funding.

I think FireFox 1.0, with the Google start page is a great idea, even if you didn't get any money for it. So much the better that you did.

Re:Clarifications

[Gerv]

The article implied (or I read into it) that Mozilla gave into some demand of Google's in order to get funding.

Like any business dealing, it's a negotation. Each party suggests things, and you come to an arrangement that works for both sides. No-one makes "demands".

Gerv

Re:Clarifications

[Creepy Crawler]

As a (now former) board member of a non-profit under 501(c)3 , I understand what kind of things might have happened.

And to tell the truth, as long as the source stays open, I dont care how you increase mindshare... well, other than following the law ;)

And really, getting IE off of machines and getting branded Firefox borwsers is actually a damned good idea. Keep up the good work and fight the Good Fight.

Re:Clarifications

[an_mo]

It's still free software, right? If I want to distribute a version of firefox with my own website as the default page, I can do that.

True, but I doubt you can call it Firefox.

Re:Clarifications

[moonbender]

Hm. I'm not sure. Couldn't find anything on a brief look at the Firefox homepage. Can you do that with GPL'd software? I know the Debian project has a special non-GPL'd logo they use to brand official releases.
Now that I think about it, the same seems to be true with Firefox: if you use a special build (like those compiled with SSE2 etc), the picture of the fox is gone in the icon and logo. I think it's still called Firefox, though.

Re:Clarifications

[Anonymous Coward]

Mozilla's trademarks are protected and not licensed for unrestricted use. You can use the Firefox name for your own versions under certain conditions. If your version doesn't meet these conditions, you can't call it Firefox.

Mozilla's Trademark Policy

Re:Clarifications

[moonbender]

Thanks, that was exactly what I was looking for.

Interestingly, the page on distribution trademark policy says:
"This document outlines the Mozilla Foundation's policy for distribution of modified versions of Firefox, Thunderbird and future products containing our trademarks. So, for example, it would apply to computer manufacturers or ISPs wanting to ship Firefox or Thunderbird with machines or on CDs." ... and later ...
"Distributors can start using the Firefox and Thunderbird trademarks as soon as they have returned a signed copy agreeing to the terms of this trademark policy, along with their name and contact information, to the Mozilla Foundation, 1350 Villa Street, Suite C, Mountain View, CA 94041-1126, USA."

Of course, this only refers to modified versions, not unmodified ones, as stressed in their FAQ.

Google respected...

[Anonymous Coward]

A very respected company...

just like Microsoft used to be once upon a time.

javascript

[rnd()]

For some reason the Mozilla developers decided to release an implementation of javascript that, while standards compliant, was not compatible with 80% of javascript code on the web.

Note to Mozilla developers: Stop sitting there with your arms crossed insisting on a strict standards compliance! Build it, but don't force everyone to write tons of extra code because an innovative language feature that IE includes is not presently part of the standard!

Firefox has been better on this front, but there is still room for improvement.

Re:javascript

[Anonymous Coward]

And now, for an opposing view:

There's a good reason the Mozilla developers decided to release an implementation of Javascript that is standards compliant and not compatible with 80% of Javascript code on the web [statistic from OP],

Note to Mozilla developers: Please insist on a strict standards compliance. Force everyone to write standard code because something that IE/Microsoft made up as an extention to a *standard* language should not be used in the first place!

[troll == anonymous]

Re:javascript

[splanky]

Note to Website developers: Stop sitting there with your arms crossed and insisting on making sites that aren't in compliance with public standards. Instead support the idea that if we -all- agree on standards it removes the power from proprietary software --- and that the mindset of "well it's just one cool non-standard feature" is exactly the mindset that got us in this mess!

Re:javascript

[Bert64]

Most of the ie-only features aren't innovative atall, and are just nonstandard ways of doing things that can also be accomplished by following standard methods too.
Also the only way to support them, is for opensource developers to reverse engineer microsoft code which could be illegal in some places.
No websites should use anything until it has been adopted as a formal standard and supported by atleast 2 reference implementations.

Re:javascript

[rnd()]

why should software developers wait for standards bodies to accomodate new features, particularly if those features are good ideas? If MS and Moz both implement a non-standard feature, it will likely become a standard the next time the standard gets updated. Meanwhile, everyone's life is made easier.

Re:javascript

[rnd()]

not exactly. If Moz had embraced 100% compatibility with IE5.0, it would have gained tremendous market share very easily. Firefox is successful because it just works (mostly) on what's out there on the web without forcing the end user to be a victim in some sort of wacko standards jihad.

Re:javascript

[rnd()]

That's a valid theoretical point, but in the case of Javascript, the Microsoft extensions are intuitive and mostly object model improvements. Also, Microsoft spends millions teaching developers to use its approach, and so Moz and FF are better off using Microsoft's momentum for their own benefit (think jujitsu) and not trying to swim upstream in some sort of standards jihad that creates tons of extra work for the few developers who bother writing cross browser code.

Re:javascript

[Cyn]

He said standard, not defacto standard.

Mozilla did embrace standards - and that's why it just works (mostly) with what's out there. Anything it's not working on is nonstandard* - which is what the grandparent said.

* or a bug :)

It's not the end user that has to stick to the standards, it's the developer - and if sticking to standards is some kind of holy war - then everyone but Microsoft is a 'terrorist'.

Re:javascript

[rnd()]

I'm a huge fan of standards, but you're right,... it's the de-facto standard that is important, not the published one, at least if you're trying to promote acceptance of a new browser.

Re:javascript

[doulios]

I don't see why the grandparent was modded troll and the parent was modded insightful. They said the same thing except one to mozilla and one to a group of people not reading slashdot. This is plain stupid.

Re:javascript

[Jussi K. Kojootti]

Actually the differences in javascript implementations are very few, maybe you are referring to DOM differences? Which ever the case, could you please point out the innovative language features Microsoft has added? I'm not interested in bashing MS here, I just think your comment has very little to do with reality.

Also, how has Firefox exactly been better on this front? I know that there have been some changes in e.g. secretly handling document.all-calls, but that stuff is not Firefox-specific. Please elaborate.

Re:javascript

[Mant]

I used to have to write cross platform JavaScript for IE4/Netscape 4. That was hellish.

Mozilla and FireFox are really good for JavaScript. Most of the stuff is very close to IE6, it even support document.all now. The biggest problem is IE lets you drop the 'document' before a form name while FireFox doesn't.

I'm trying to think of an innovative language feature IE has that is on standard. XMLHttpRequest is cool, but Mozilla browsers have that. IIRC you initialise it a little differently, but it isn't tons of new code.

Got any examples? You can do some neat stuff with DX filters in IE, but that is Windows machines only, and I'm not aware of a coding equivilent you could do on another browser.

Still, 80% is a massive overstatement. I find FireFox JavaScript works fine on the vast majority of pages I visit.

Re:javascript

[Mant]

Standards are good, but on the web slow. Look at neat things like XMLHTTPrequest that can update data to a page without a reload.

Non standard, but after MS puts it in, so have other browsers because it is really useful. Not following standards have given us some really bad ideas (Netscape's Layers) and some really good ones like this.

If it is non-standard but cross browser and useful I would definately use it as a web developer. Something IE or Windows only I would staty clear of.

Re:javascript

[splanky]

We weren't saying the same thing. The original poster was arguing on behalf of accepting as a 'de-facto' standard the non-standard parts of IE that have become common on the web. I was arguing that while Firefox was smart to acknowledge those de-facto standards and put in 'fixes' for them so that they render ok, it is not a good long term plan for developers to add non-standard features to their sites because that 'feature-whoredom' that MS encourages is what got us in this mess. I don't agree with the original poster, but it is an area that thoughtful people can disagree - So, he/she was pushing a reasonable point - just one that I disagree with. That original post shouldn't be marked as a troll post - they were making a decent point.

Re:javascript

[metsu]

I'd be happy if they let non-standard code work, but make a point of making the user aware that it is non-standard.

like making the website icon or location color red, or a small statusbar icon saying that it's not compliant.
something akin to saying 'this website is not standard compliant' (not just js, but html/css etc.)

Re:javascript

[Schnapple]

Yes, you're right - let's write standards-compliant javascript that won't run on most people's browsers but will instead run on a standards-compliant browser that less than 10% of the populace has. Then let's wonder why competing sites eat our lunch.

Re:javascript

[ad0gg]

Ummm Google Maps, and gmail both use non standardized javascript. There's no way you can write a dynamic web application without picking a single browser or writing a bunch if statements to write behavior depending on the browser. Firefox even implements tags outside of w3c standards(ie: ).

Re:javascript

[pjrc]

Note to Website developers:

Hmm... I wouldn't call myself a "website developer", but I do have a multi-hundred page website that I just started working on again, after mostly neglecting it for a year.

Stop sitting there with your arms crossed and insisting on making sites that aren't in compliance with public standards.

First and foremost, I'm concerned about providing the best experience for anyone who visits my little site.

I wouldn't say I'm resisting standard ("sitting there with your arms cross..."). Standards make sense where they help. But if there's a choice between following a standard or making the site work properly for all users, guess which one I'm going to take?

CSS is an excellent example. Yeah, I'm using some style elements, but as nearly as I can tell, Microsoft's browser still has many horrible bugs on lots of CSS beyond just the basics. You're not going to see me making extensive use of CSS until 99.9% of all browsers in use fully support it without bugs. Things are getting better, but there's still a lot of people using windows 98 and IE 5.

it removes the power from proprietary software --- and that the mindset of "well it's just one cool non-standard feature" is exactly the mindset that got us in this mess!

Maybe that's your issue, but not mine. Over here, I'm worrying about how to make a good website.... not Microsoft's stranglehold on the PC industry. I want my site to work nicely for everyone who comes to visit.

What got us all into this "mess" is that, even now, a bunch of this "standard" stuff just doesn't work. Or more specifically, browsers that don't fully or correctly support it.

So don't blame me. Don't put this on web site developers. It's the fault of buggy browsers. Anyone making a website is at the mercy of poorly written broswers, and it going to do anything they can to give their users the experience they should get using the most reliable methods they can. Those broswers bugs hurt for a long time, because even if only a small fraction of the population does not upgrade, those bugs stay with us. Even then, many sites don't rework all their pages every month or year.

It's only been fairly recently that almost all browsers have really started supporting the standards, and some, like a certain one that has 90% of the market, still doesn't support them very well.

Re:javascript

[splanky]

I agree with most everything you argue... Know that my "arms crossed" etc. was phrased that way to poke fun at the parent message by paraphrasing their message but changing a few words... But, as a developer of a completely crappy tiny website and having also had the experience of my site working differently in different browsers (I'm too stupid to make different sites for different browsers), I think this could start the continuous pass the buck/hot potato method of responsibility. If the browsers are lousy, then the websites work around them, but now the browsers (i.e. Firefox) have to work around the websites that are buggy because of the buggy browsers that are buggy because of the buggy websites that are buggy because of the... You get the idea. So, who should step up and take responsibility? MS won't, so we count on the marketplace to do it. And the most free part of the marketplace is opensource software and the tons of independent websites. So, ok, I'll admit, I blame you!! :)

Re:javascript

[rnd()]

There are a bunch of DOM differences... I will post them in a bit... FireFox and Moz have gotten a lot better, but it seems silly that it took several years for them to decide to implement the DOM in a way that would make the majority of existing pages work! There is still a bit of room for improvement.

Re:javascript

[Jussi K. Kojootti]

No need to post all the differences - I've done my share of web development. I'm just wondering about the innovation part...

Re:javascript

[rnd()]

That would be a great solution!

Re:javascript

[rnd()]

I just meant some of the DOM features that Moz initially implemented the way Netscape had them rather than the more intuitive and (in my opinion) superior way that IE had them. Only very recently can a web developer target IE6/FF1 and write pretty much one version of the code. I think that this should be a goal of the Moz/FF projects even if it means deviating from a standard now and then.

Re:javascript

[narrowhouse]

Because if developers use any "new feature" that comes down the pike they create an incentive for companies to constantly change the software to break compatibility with competitors. MS and Moz both implement a non-standard feature, MS or Moz change the way that not standard feature works... and poof you are back on the treadmill monkeyboy, supporting 2 non-standard features. At least if you code to a standard you know which implementation you SHOULD use, and you know who broke away on purpose.

Re:Javascript

[mr_luc]

I just have to plug this.

So many people think that Javascript has something, ANYTHING, to do with Java.

In fact, Javascript is a much more powerful language, supporting not only the simplistic forms of code reuse that we associate with object-oriented programming but considerably more powerful and useful functionality. This is proved by the fact that Crockford was able to write an interpreter for Scheme in Javascript. :D

http://www.crockford.com/javascript/scheme.html

Don't get me wrong, I think that strongly-typed languages have their place and are useful . . . but Python, Javascript -- it looks like Google has definitely got the ability to take the productivity gains from dynamic languages and apply them in the real world.

Re:javascript

[aztracker1]

Not quite.. much of the scripting out there isn't W3C DOM Compliant... mainly because a lot of things were implimented, in IE, and old NN before any real standards were defined...

Putting this aside, for the most part IE6 and FF could use the same script base for a while.. as long as people test for functionality...

if (document.all) {...}

Instead of trying to determin *WHAT* browser they are using.

Just another reason

[earthforce_1]

for Microsoft to hate Google.

Why worry?

[nautical9]

This can only be a good thing. Mozilla/Firefox is open source. Should Google suddenly turn "evil" as a lot of people are speculating, we can always fork a new one from the last untainted version and start from there. Until that day, if it comes, Firefox gains financial support and another big backer. So what's the problem?

Re:Why worry?

[Anonymous Coward]

what if google patents 'forking'? :-)

Impressive use of the budget...

[ttys00]

From the article: He said that Mozilla Europe has carried out the majority of its marketing activity on "zero budget", having spent the majority of its $20,000 allowance from the Mozilla Foundation on a large booth at the NetWorld/Interop conference in Paris last year.

They've managed a lot of marketing from "zero budget", which is impressive.

IMHO, the booth at the conference was a waste of money though. Paying bounties for certain features (like Ubuntu does) might have been a better spend.

Re:Impressive use of the budget...

[enjahova]

Im guessing that it was a marketing budget to spread the word of Mozilla in Europe. If that is the case then Im not sure what putting out bounties would do with that specific amount of money, Im willing to bet the foundation earmarks other funds for that kind of stuff.

Re:Impressive use of the budget...

[DoorFrame]

"Paying bounties for certain features"... wouldn't be marketing.

Re:+1 Insightful?!

[Kru)(fen]

...maybe I should explain that "tabbed browsing" is not the ability in lynx to tab between hyperlinks but rather a feature in something called a Graphical User Interface based browser that allows for multiple webpages...

Actually, you can have tabbed browsing on console as well. Check out elinks if you doubt me :)

apt-get install elinks, and you are done!

Gmail and Browsers ...

[Pat__]

Google recently finished their simple HTML interface for Gmail so logging in with older browsers is now possible.

I guess as long as Google support all browsers (even other non standard compliant older browsers) then great for them!

And the Firefox people can't really "sell out" since anyone can provide modified versions without any google stuff if the official version gets sponsored I suppose we can't complain.

Re:Gmail and Browsers ...

[dragonman97]

They did what now? I just tried logging on with links and was sorely disappointed (still needs JS). *sigh*

(I wasn't surprised that it didn't work in Dillo, as there's presently no HTTPS support.)

Re:Gmail and Browsers ...

[epall]

Wait a sec, they did?! I never heard about it... How do I get to it?

Re:Gmail and Browsers ...

[Pat__]

I think they just launched it yesterday, check this for more info! However, as a previous poster mentionned it it seems javascript is still required. I guess the new interface removes the need for XMLHttpRequest Object support in the browser ...

Re:Gmail and Browsers ...

[handslikesnakes]

It works for me in lynx.

Re:Gmail and Browsers ...

[evilviper]

I suppose we can't complain.

850,000 slashdotters are standing-by to prove you wrong...

Underpin

[asoap]

Does anybody else think that underpin is a little to similar to undermine? I read the post, and I couldn't figure out why Google would want to be so mean to Firefox/Mozilla. They just hired the lead programmer, google is the homepage for firefox, so why would the be so mean, why google, why?!? Then I looked it up, and underpin is a positive not a negative.

*sigh*, All is well.

You were saying...

[jaaron]

I'm not saying Google will do this, but I can't think of a single, not-for-profit tech company that hasn't done some morally or ethically reprehensible thing at one point in its history. Can you?

I'm not saying you'll do this, but I can't think of a single, self-aware human being that hasn't done some morally or ethically reprehensible thing at one point in his or her history. Can you?

Re:You were saying...

[Mantorp]

I'm not saying you'll do this, but I can't think of a single, self-aware human being that hasn't done some morally or ethically reprehensible thing at one point in his or her history. Can you?

Gimme a minute while I collect some stones.

Re:You were saying...

[HanB]

I hope there will one day be a company that realizes that it wouldn't make them happier, most likely not even richer.

Re:You were saying...

[analog_line]

Can you?

No, I can't. All the more reason to not ascribe pure motives by default to anyone, especially "persons" built from legal constructs and run by committee like corporations.

History may forgive me if my best friend, whom I've known for years, who's family I know well, etc, takes advantage of my trust and screws me over. However, trusting a corporation you know comparatively nothing about will get you nothing but people laughing at you (including me) for being so naive. The "corporation" has been proven untrustworthy since the days of the East India Company.

Re:You were saying...

[Gerv]

I can't think of a single, self-aware human being that hasn't done some morally or ethically reprehensible thing at one point in his or her history. Can you?

Yes - Jesus Christ. :-) The key point is, though, that there aren't any others. He was unique.

Gerv

Re:You were saying...

[csjavi]

Yes - Jesus Christ. :-)

According to his PR people. We really have no facts about his life.

Re:You were saying...

[Gerv]

By that logic, we have no facts about the life of any historical figure.

"Henry VIII? Well, obviously he would only let people write what he wanted them to write, so we can't know anything about him at all..."

If the authors of the New Testament were his "PR people", they weren't very good at their own PR. A lot of the time, they describe themselves and each other as blind, incompetent buffoons who don't get what Jesus was on about. Not really the marks of some truth-blurring spin job.

Gerv

Re:You were saying...

[Ironsides]

Same goes for Solomon, Nebuchadnezzar, Any Ceasar, many Kings/Queens/Emperors/Czars of any country, Buddah, Joan of Arch, Jacob, Moses and many, many more.

Re:You were saying...

[emil.ede]

I'm not saying you'll do this, but I can't think of a single, self-aware human being that hasn't done some morally or ethically reprehensible thing at one point in his or her history. Can you?

Still I find it interesting that non-profit organizations seems to do behave much more ethically than for-profit corporations.

Re:You were saying...

[monkeyman_67156]

There was this Jesus fella...

Re:You were saying...

[Anonymous Coward]

A) Portraying yourself as a buffoon who doesn't get the wisdom of the person you are polishing up seems like a good idea to me.
B) You're making the curious assumption that the gospels were written by the people in them instead of much later, which isn't even what they say (well, with one exception). That's merely what tradition teaches. ...
C) What the heck does this have to do with Google and Firefox and how did you get marked up interesting instead of wildly off-topic and maybe troll?

Re:You were saying...

[Lachek]

Corporations are not people, whatever the law may say in your country. Actions taken by corporations are decided on by several individuals and are generally deliberated over for a longer period of time. In theory, this makes it far more possible for a corporation to consistently make moral and ethical decisions than it is for your average, hot-headed individual.

In practice, of course, the situation always seem reversed, but that doesn't mean that corporate amorality is a natural law. I sincerely wish that Google will be one of the first of a new breed of corporations that actually do care enough about humanitity to "not be evil".

Re:You were saying...

[Anonymous Coward]

For a fairly significant number of historical sources there are sources that had direct knowledge of the person they wrote about without being under the control of the person they wrote about or having a vested interest in presenting a specific story.

Now, one might claim that the original sources of the New Testament did have direct knowledge of Jesus, but the people who wrote the gospels down were at least one, most likely several, levels further separated from Jesus and I've never heard of any other sources that even claim direct knowledge of Jesus. The closest you get in sources from around Jesus time are highly disputed paragraphs in the work of Josephus.

Jesus is peculiar in that very few "historical figures" that have had such importance through the ages are so poorly documented. Extensive records exist for many people from that time that are now completely forgotten. For many other historical figures for which there are no written records from sources which direct knowledge of the person there are at least second hand accounts or accounts from critics that corroborate parts of the accounts of their followers, or properly credited quotes from earlier works that can be cross referenced from multiple sources, all of which give a significantly greater reason to assume we have proper knowledge of these persons.

This does give a good basis for doubting claims about Jesus, or even doubting his existence as a historical person at all - all knowledge about Jesus is second/third hand knowledge at best, written down by members of a cult that had a significant interest in perpetuating the stories they believed in, that still haven't managed to make the stories internally consistent and in it's early history discarded a large number of even more inconsistent stories

When it comes to Henry VIII on the other hand (or even many people contemporary with Jesus for that matter), there exists significant numbers o contemporary accounts to from sources not immediately affiliated with any movement built around worshipping him.

Re:You were saying...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmmm, I don't have examples for all of the people that you mentioned, but Solomon, Nebuchadnezzar, Jacob, and Moses all have documented (if you believe the Bible which it appears that you do) moral spots somewhere in their lives.

Re:You were saying...

[Gerv]

I think he was talking about the "We have no facts about his life" thing, not the "perfect life" thing. In other words, he was saying that "If you use that logic to say we have no facts about the life of Jesus, then we have no facts about the life of ".

Gerv

Re:You were saying...

[Gerv]

Jesus is peculiar in that very few "historical figures" that have had such importance through the ages are so poorly documented.

In terms of number of writers, and numbers of consistent copies of their writings, Jesus is by far and away the best-attested historical figure of his time. I'd recommend "The Canon Of Scripture" by F.F. Bruce, which covers this territory. It's a fairly in-depth read, but it is thorough.

Gerv

Re:You were saying...

[An Onerous Coward]

To some extent, this is true. Pinning down facts about a historical figure is tricky, and gets trickier as you go further back.

But on a more fundamental level, it's a bogus comparison. With Henry VIII, we have multiple eyewitness accounts of his life, copious written documents about the time period which corroborate each other. We have decrees he pronounced, legislation he demanded. So while there may be disagreements over motivations for specific actions, or whether letter x was really sent on date y, there is a clear outline of his life which anyone familiar with historical research can verify.

In the case of Jesus, we have none of this. We can get glimmers of how the average person lived his or her life in Jerusalem of 15-35AD. But we have nothing written by Jesus, nothing written by eyewitnesses or assistants, nothing written about him by anyone until decades after the events are said to have taken place.

Paul gives the earliest mentions of Jesus, but provides almost no biographical detail. We know he was familiar with the story of the tomb, but that's all we know for sure. The gospels of Matt, Mark, Luke, and John came much later. Mark seems to have been written first, right after the razing of the temple in Jerusalem. The other three drew on Mark as a primary source, but reworked many details to promote their own agendas.

Then we get into the extra-biblical documentation. Except there isn't any. No tax records, judicial decisions, or anything else specifically referring to Jesus. The Christian movement itself stays under the radar for decades. The first reference to them is in Tacitus' Annals, which demonstrates only that there were Christians living in Rome by about 100AD. His information may be second-hand.

Some of the earliest literature about Jesus comes from the Gnostics, but it's very unlikely that any Christian will accept those writings as having historical content.

Things are so bad, there have been fairly mainstream, plausible attempts to show that Jesus was an entirely mythical character. You just cannot do that with Henry VIII, but the sheer lack of timely corroborating evidence makes it possible with Jesus.

I'm fine with accepting the limits of historical inquiry. I don't think these facts imply anything bad about the Christian faith or the people who follow it. However, many Christians want to believe that every word of the Bible is perfectly true. Those people will have trouble accepting that the silence of history stands in sharp contrast with the importance they place on Jesus today.

Re:You were saying...

[Anonymous Coward]

So flinging stones at someone isn't morally or ethically reprehensible?

Color me confused and amused :-)

Re:You were saying...

[shellbeach]

Things are so bad, there have been fairly mainstream, plausible attempts to show that Jesus was an entirely mythical character. You just cannot do that with Henry VIII, but the sheer lack of timely corroborating evidence makes it possible with Jesus.

/* Disclaimer: I'm not religious, but I'm not anti-religious either, and I find this whole area fascinating. That said, I've never researched this and don't know much about it ;) */

First off, you can't really make a comparison between the primary source material available on Henry VIII vs. that available on Jesus - we're talking different world regions, seriously different time periods, etc, etc. What you'd have to do is see if there was any evidence extant for any other weird Jewish cult leaders running around in the first century AD. Because that's all that Jesus - if he did exist - was to the Romans, who were the guys writing stuff down. The problem with Jesus and Christianity is that it started off in a region of the world that already had way too much religious trouble, as a exclusive off-shoot of Judaism. No-one was going to pay much attention to that at the time, so it's not surprising that no-one recorded anything about just another mad prophet called Jesus.

The first reference to them is in Tacitus' Annals, which demonstrates only that there were Christians living in Rome by about 100AD.

Actually, by 64 AD (i.e. the date of the great fire of Rome). We also can assume that since the Christians were blamed for starting it, they'd been around for a bit getting a name for themselves. It'd be interesting to know more about the spread of other Jewish cults around that time period - it seems quite impressive that within 30-odd years of ol' JC getting himself crossed off there are enough of those weird Christian guys hanging about Rome for people to see them as serious trouble-makers.

And the big problem with Jesus-never-existed arguments, AFAICS, is that the fact remains that Christianity started and it spread. And there must have been some central prophet-figure to start it. So you basically have the "Shakespeare wasn't written by Shakespeare, but by another guy with the same name" problem.

(That is, unless it's all a deliberate hoax dreamed up by a few bored Jerusalemites on a Sunday arvo - in which case, more power to them. That's gotta be the best con ever :)

Re:You were saying...

[Gerv]

But we have nothing written by Jesus, nothing written by eyewitnesses or assistants, nothing written about him by anyone until decades after the events are said to have taken place.

So you're assuming John wasn't written by John, and Mark wasn't written at Peter's direction, as the early church fathers attest.

If you are going to say that "written decades later" discounts it, there's a lot of ancient and modern writings you are also throwing away as worthless.

Paul gives the earliest mentions of Jesus, but provides almost no biographical detail. We know he was familiar with the story of the tomb, but that's all we know for sure.

That's all we know for sure? One of the greatest theologians ever, who understood Jesus' message and Christianity extremely well and explained aspects of it in letters to many different churches "was familiar with the story of the tomb"? Is that really all you'll give him credit for?

The gospels of Matt, Mark, Luke, and John came much later. Mark seems to have been written first, right after the razing of the temple in Jerusalem.

After the razing of the temple? I find it hard to believe that the most major event in Jewish history for hundreds of years, which was the fulfilment of prophecies made by Jesus, didn't rate even a passing mention in documents containing those prophecies which were supposedly written after it happened. Some arguments from silence are stronger than others; this one screams at you.

The Christian movement itself stays under the radar for decades.

Sure.

Things are so bad, there have been fairly mainstream, plausible attempts to show that Jesus was an entirely mythical character.

Someone showed me Remsberg's "The Christ" the other day, which attempts to do exactly that. I don't know if that's one of those you are thinking of, but if that's the best that can be done, Christianity has nothing to worry about.

Gerv

Re:You were saying...

[Anonymous Coward]

In terms of number of writers, and numbers of consistent copies of their writings, Jesus is by far and away the best-attested historical figure of his time.

Well, duh... THE CHRISTIANS BURNED OR SUPPRESSED EVERYTHING NOT RELATING TO THEIR STUPID CULT. No wonder there's nothing for some jackass with an agenda to compare Jebus to... Because, well, there is nothing!

No matter how much you polish a turd...

Re:You were saying...

[humina]

Debating whether Jesus did what he did, or whether the documents that describe his actions are authentic is an interesting topic. It is however completely Irrelavant to the idea of Christianity. Jesus wanted to spread love and get other people to do the same. "treat others as you would yourself" and whatnot. If people do that then I think they have figured out the Christianity that the person named Jesus envisioned. Understanding his existence is a moot point as long as you understand his message.

I don't really care how authentic the bible is. If someone picks the bible up. Reads it. Then decided that the things Jesus did are great and that they would like to do great things then I mark that as 1 point for Jesus. If Jesus is able to get people to understand and love one another then I say he's ok in my book.

I even think that other religions that ask for the same love towards our common man that Jesus talks about, are working toward what god intended with Jesus.

Religions that preach hate in the name of god are preaching contradictory to the teachings of Jesus. God Hates Fags... I'm looking at you.

From a historical perspective, learning about how the bible came about is fascinating. From a religious standpoint understanding where the gospel comes from doesn't really matter. Understanding that the bible says you need to love and respect your common man is religiously paramount.

Re:You were saying...

[Anonymous Coward]

In the case of Jesus, we have none of this.

This might be it.

Depends on who you agree with though. Some Christians scholars say these documents have nothing to do with Christ whilst other scholars observe many interesting parallels with Jesus's life.

Posted anonymously to avoid religious war.

Re:You were saying...

[Gerv]

Jesus wanted to spread love and get other people to do the same. Understanding his existence is a moot point as long as you understand his message. "treat others as you would yourself" and whatnot. If people do that then I think they have figured out the Christianity that the person named Jesus envisioned.

Did you figure that out without reading the Bible? :-) Jesus did not come to call the world to social reform, he came to restore our broken relationship with God. The need for this restoration, and the mechanism for it, are the most vital parts of his message. The greatest commandment was not to love your neighbour as yourself, it was to love the Lord your God with all your heart. (Mark 12:29-34) And it's our failure to do this which meant Jesus had to come.

Understanding his existence is a moot point as long as you understand his message.

His coming to earth is a vital part of his message. Jesus lives a perfect life among us as a human so he was in a position to take the punishment we deserve for our rebellion against God, and enable us to love him again with all our heart. If he didn't actually come, die, and rise from the dead, Christianity is a sham and a waste of time.

The question of whether he existed or not is therefore a vital one, if you are trying to understand his message.

Gerv

Re:You were saying...

[An Onerous Coward]

The "early Church fathers" were in no position to determine the authenticity of the documents from which they derived both their teachings and their authority. Nor is the fact that the books were written decades later the only issue. Look at the autobiography of Benjamin Franklin. Here we have a book written many decades after most of the events took place. It is also the sole source for many of the details of Franklin's life; they cannot be corroborated by any other documentation.

The differences, though, are profound. We know who the author is, and have ample corroboration for a great many other details, which lead us to conclude that the autobiography as a whole is reliable enough.

The problem is, people like you--who want to convince everyone that the Bible is reliable--try to portray the authors of the synoptics as four independent sources, each writing from memory and also scouring the Judean countryside for eyewitnesses, and each having the sort of critical scrutiny that characterizes the best journalism today. Read Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ" as a paragon of that approach.

The documentation just isn't anywhere near as reliable as you want to believe. We have four books, authors unknown, which crib from each other shamelessly even as they try to contradict each other on both biographical details and points of doctrine. The early Church fathers adopted the books not because they had critically investigated their origins and found the books reliable, but because they had a following and said what they considered acceptable doctrine.

You're also ignoring that the Bible should be held to a higher standard of historical evidence than ordinary historical questions. When somebody calls into question the authenticity of a love letter from King Henry VIII to one of his wives, or questions whether a later author added a particular passage to Romeo and Juliet, it doesn't matter. A few historians write a few papers, somebody loses or gains tenure, a few breathless books get written for public consumption. But in the end, it doesn't have any bearing on our lives today.

Contrast that with evidence that brings doubt on the authenticity of the Bible. According to religious folks like yourself, we have to be able to rely on the absolute truth of those ancient writings; we have to because we're expected to make decisions today based on its teachings. I guarantee, if the life of every man, woman, and child on the planet depended on the accuracy of some detail in Ben Franklin's autobiography, it would be held to far higher standards than any historians use in the ordinary course of of their work.

That's all we know for sure? One of the greatest theologians ever, who understood Jesus' message and Christianity extremely well and explained aspects of it in letters to many different churches "was familiar with the story of the tomb"? Is that really all you'll give him credit for?

Pretty much.

First, Paul's talent as a theologian isn't at issue. What is at issue is this: What is the source of his teachings?

As you well know, Paul never met Jesus in the flesh. Instead, he claims to have had a vision in which Christ appeared to him and told him to preach the gospel. Paul wasn't one of the twelve apostles, and in fact had a fractious relationship with them. As a believer, you have to work under the assumption that modern Christianity is correct. So Paul has to be an authentic source of teachings, and therefore couldn't have been an interloper trying to reshape Christianity to fit his own views.

I'm under no such compulsion, so you would have to demonstrate some reasons for me to believe that Paul was simply expounding the message of Christ, instead of co-opting it.

You misrepresent what I said when you ask, "Is that all you give him credit for?" I said that Paul demonstrates little familiarity

Re:You were saying...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, big M. He was da bomb, he was.

Re:You were saying...

[Anonymous Coward]

The cultivation of stupidity is well alive on slashdot too, it would seem.

Both Arabs and Christian monks preserved writings from times even hundreds of years "BC".

Google OS

[Virtual Karma]

Trust me. All this is heading towards Google OS

Re:Google OS

[clawDATA]

The OS is irrelevent. In the future software will be on a layer above the OS. Any OS. Just look at the vast number of very sophisticated web applications which not only exist, but work together in unimaginable ways (like this.)

And this is just the beginning.

This is why Microsoft makes their browser noncompliant -- if it followed standards, they'd be fucked! The more confusion they can create in the minds of consumers, the greater the chance they can keep their market share. After all, why should people start using FireFox if most websites are designed for IE? The standard is what the majority is using, and right now the standard is Microsoft.

The future isn't in building hardware or writing software. Prices will be so cheap for over-powered systems that they'll for all intents and purposes be commodity items. Software will be provided by open-source. One age in the evolution of computing is ending, and a new one is beginning.

In the future the big money is in providing services.

And Microsoft missed out. They stumbled, and are racing to catch up, but it's probably too late. The decline has begun.

We'll know in ten years or so.

All is well and generalized...

[jaaron]

All is well and good right now, Aggrazel's still not evil.

The chances of Aggrazel remaining not evil however in the long term future are not good. Every human turns evil sooner or later.. it is only matter of time.

Come on people! What's with the massive, ignorant, I-didn't-think-before-I-hit-submit generalizations that get modded insightful around here?

Details?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm pretty surprised nobody has quoted this bit yet:

Following an agreement reached last year, Firefox includes Google as the default option for users wanting to search the Web directly, and also has its default start page hosted by Google. Markham didn't reveal full details of the Foundation's deal with Google.

How open is "open source" when secret deals are made with corporations?

And Open Source Applications Foundation (Mozilla's parent organization) is a 501(c)3 non-profit foundation. Aren't non-profits required to publicize some of their financial records?

Re:Details?

[Gerv]

I didn't reveal the full details because I don't know them :-) This is good, because I can freely speculate without giving anything away (which is what I was doing at FOSDEM).

Having said that, "open source" doesn't have to mean "everything that goes on is public". We have private security bugs, private staff meetings and confidential business deals - often because the other party wants it that way.

I'm sure the Foundation will publish all the financial records that it's required to.

Gerv

Re:Details?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah bunch of kids having so called 'important secret meetings' about their amateur school browser project. Bet they talk in code too.

I'm sorry that your time on the IE team has left you so bitter. Try and remember that the neglect shown by your employer and the hatred of the PC using public is not something you should take personally.

People don't hate you because of that. No, people hate you because you're a whiney little shit with no redeeming qualities.

And try not to worry too much about the future. Although your coding days are behind you, there is always money to be made sucking cock.

HTH. HAND.

Re:Details?

[guanxi]

I think people expect open source projects to be managed 'openly', too -- to have decisions discussed and publicized on mailing lists, even if there is a final arbiter.

That's not Mozilla's approch, AFAICT. I don't think it's right or wrong, but it should be clarified to avoid giving volunteers the wrong idea about their relationship with the Mozilla.

I've contributed many hours to Mozilla.org (though I'm certainly not among the top contributors). From my perspective, Mozilla.org operates more like a private business than a community project; it's more like volunteering for Google, a business that seems 'not evil'.

I know the budget is different and some systems (e.g. bugzilla) are designed to incorporate volunteer participation, but that doesn't affect volunteers' relationsihips with Mozilla.org. Moz.org makes decisions and operates a business, independently of the community.

Perhaps the way to describe it would be as the software equivalent of America's public TV and radio.

Re:Details?

[Gerv]

I think people expect open source projects to be managed 'openly', too -- to have decisions discussed and publicized on mailing lists, even if there is a final arbiter.

Deals like the ones we've made with search engines would not be possible without some degree of confidentiality in making them. These companies do not want their business strategies revealed to all and sundry. And, if a deal isn't reached, they don't want to be known as "the company which didn't get a deal to be in Firefox".

You may say that the confidentiality is too high a price to pay to get the deal. That would be a consistent view; but I think, having seen the outcome and what happened, a lot of people would disagree with you.

Gerv

Re:Details?

[Creepy Crawler]

---I think people expect open source projects to be managed 'openly', too -- to have decisions discussed and publicized on mailing lists, even if there is a final arbiter.

Well, what would you do if you were offered X amount of money to go brand a FireFox browser with a corporate logo? If the company wants it secret, well.. then it has to do with if teh X dollars is worth the secrecy.

In most cases, it is.

---That's not Mozilla's approch, AFAICT. I don't think it's right or wrong, but it should be clarified to avoid giving volunteers the wrong idea about their relationship with the Mozilla.

They're a 501(c)3 non-profit corporation. Go read that general piece of law and Mozilla's Charter.

Then again, you still donate code under the MPL.

---I've contributed many hours to Mozilla.org (though I'm certainly not among the top contributors). From my perspective, Mozilla.org operates more like a private business than a community project; it's more like volunteering for Google, a business that seems 'not evil'.

Sure is. It also provides a way to have money non-taxed, a big incentive. They also have many corporate protections otherwise not usually obtained.

And about Google, they're a sellout. Once they went public, they really lost control of what they want to do. Now they have an externalizing factor of what they "cant" do. Now, if they were to spend more money on R&D and the stockholders thought the research was wasted, Sue Sue Sue.

---I know the budget is different and some systems (e.g. bugzilla) are designed to incorporate volunteer participation, but that doesn't affect volunteers' relationsihips with Mozilla.org. Moz.org makes decisions and operates a business, independently of the community.

---Perhaps the way to describe it would be as the software equivalent of America's public TV and radio.

?? The way to describe it is by calling it what it is. 501(c)3 Non-Profit Corporation.

Re:Details?

[guanxi]

Regarding the Google deal (I'm posting this separately because it's a separate issue):

It may be a very good deal -- it's certainly seems like good business -- but the fact that a Moz feature was adware, no matter how popular, should have been disclosed:

Mozilla has created the expectation that its software serves users' interests, not the financial or business needs of the manufacturer. It's a key point in differentiating the organization and its products.

Many people have contributed to Mozilla.org on that basis; adware changes it. It's disingenuous, I think, to make that change without discussion it with those who've contributed and especially without disclosing it.

It's also disingenous to users: Mozilla.org has given them the same expectation, and in that context Google as the home page looks like a technical choice by Mozilla.org and an independent endorsement of Google. It turns out to be a paid advertisement. It's like an advertisement disguised as news in a newspaper.

It doesn't pass the smell test. Perhaps everyone's expectation is wrong, but then Mozilla.org should clarify it's position.

Re:Details?

[guanxi]

If you read the rest of my post, beyond the first line you quoted, you'll see that I'm not being critical, I'm pointing out the difference between most people's (not my) expectations and the reality of how Moz.org works.

My only point is, Moz.org should make it clear that that's how it operates.

My other post is critical ;-).

Thanks for helping to turn out such great software, BTW.

Re:Details?

[Gerv]

a Moz feature was adware

It's not adware. Adware is software which is installed to show you ads. What ads do you see in Firefox that you wouldn't see if we hadn't made the search engine deals? None. If you search using a search engine, you see that search engine's ads - but that's true whether that engine is built in, or the default, or you visit it by typing the URL.

Mozilla has created the expectation that its software serves users' interests, not the financial or business needs of the manufacturer. It's a key point in differentiating the organization and its products.

Absolutely. As I discussed in the talk I gave, there's a very fine balance.

Google as the home page looks like a technical choice by Mozilla.org and an independent endorsement of Google.

Anyone who thinks that wasn't paying too much attention. The home page is co-branded, and hosted on google.com. Obviously it's the result of a collaboration between the two organisations.

Gerv

Re:Details?

[shish]

How open is "open source"

It's open... source...

Not necessarily open business; they need to get food on the table somehow...

Re:Details?

[trewornan]

I used to change my homepage to google anyway.

I was a little surprised to see that the new default was a google/mozilla hybrid but so what

Ignore these dumbasses - I can't see any moral problem with using google as a default search engine/start page, so long as users can change the default if they want to.

Re:Details?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but people hate you because you are a pendantic turd.

Re:Details?

[MushMouth]

Sorry, it is adware.

Not only is it adware, but it is Spyware, as if you mistype an URL it defaults to sending your mistyped url to google (which you need to use the unituitive about:config to remove). Also I have yet to figure out a way to remove google from the list of searches. Hell google is hardcoded in the configs. All lame.

You should have had the homepage and top/default search gone to something like dmoz.org, or better yet about:blank.

Re:Details?

[hkmwbz]

"Having said that, "open source" doesn't have to mean "everything that goes on is public". We have private security bugs, private staff meetings and confidential business deals - often because the other party wants it that way."

Something I've seen a few people comment about is the way the Mozilla organization sometimes behaves like a commercial entity. The definition of non-profit is:

(a) contributions of significant amounts of resources from providers who do not expect proportionate return, (b) operating purposes other than to provide goods or services at a profit, and (c) absence of ownership interests like those of business enterprises.

Now, clearly, Mozilla has paid employees. It is also heavily involved in business deals, such as the one with Google. It also protects its trademarks vigorously, and so on.

What is it that makes Mozilla a real non-profit organization? I'm really wondering, because it seems that it is backed by quite a few major corporations, and those are clearly profiting from this. Can a non-profit really do business deals?

Re:Details?

[hkmwbz]

I agree with the other poster.

Mozilla has a public image as being the little David fighting Goliath (Microsoft), but the fact is that Mozilla is run by professionals, with paid and professional staff. And backing Mozilla is a list of huge corporations, such as Sun, IBM, Google and Nokia. There is a community, but you can find that for commercial software as well.

I think the public image of Mozilla is somewhat misleading. To a lot of people it's about "the nice Mozilla foundation", but you do real business, and you have been known to resort to saying things that are untrue. Example: A Minimo developer in an interview started talking about Opera, and how Opera wasn't as portable as Minimo. Now, Opera is already available for lots of mobile operating systems, while Minimo is only available for Linux. Also, the guy had no way of really knowing, as I doubt he had actually seen Opera's source code.

Also, with the recent IDN spoofing issue, Mozilla rushed out a bad hack which was supposed to be a fix, apparently just to make some nice headline in the press. And it got flamed by the rest of the world.

These kinds of questionable actions are quite different from the impression most people seem to have - that Mozilla is a non-protif organization that doesn't resort to dirty business practices.

But Mozilla does seem rather commercialized, doesn't it?

Re:Details?

[hkmwbz]

Please note: I am not saying that Mozilla is evil or anything like that. I am just concerned about some signals I am picking up, and I wish you would be more open about things like corporate sponsorship, and the fact that Firefox's development isn't really community-driven, as people are led to believe.

Re:Details?

[Gerv]

Also, with the recent IDN spoofing issue, Mozilla rushed out a bad hack which was supposed to be a fix, apparently just to make some nice headline in the press. And it got flamed by the rest of the world.

That Register article is wrong in almost every detail. They pulled it from the front page a few hours after it was published, and it hasn't reappeared.

Gerv

Re:Details?

[hkmwbz]

Ok, thanks for the info :) It is not an ideal solution, but if the registrars of the world are fine with it, who am I to complain ;)

Nobody wants a Google OS

[Anonymous Coward]

yuk. Who wants a fucking stupid Google OS ? Only seasoned idiots and sheep. What are you gonna do with it ? Search for stupid blog quotes and pr0n on your computer or something? While all the time Google OS is phoning home and sending the contents of your hard disk back to Google HQ...for 'aggregrate statistics' of course. Oh and while your email is defaced with streaming Google ads.

Whole thing would be just be one massive piece of spyware/spamware.

Pathetic idea. Get a life.

Shame they only have maps of North America...

[doodlelogic]

try multimap.com's maps for elsewhere?

Re:Shame they only have maps of North America...

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought it was because North America is the only part of the world that has roads to map.

Re:Shame they only have maps of North America...

[DoorFrame]

Glad I only ever drive in North America (it's the best America in town!)

Trust me it isn't

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no market for Google OS, which lets face it would be little more than Linux + a Google logo on the desktop and riddled with spyware/spamware for Google to snoop on you and send you stupid fucking ads that pop up everywhere on your desktop.

Competition would be GOOD ... if there were some

[SgtChaireBourne]

Microsoft doesn't have to build a better browser. It just has to build one that's good enough.

Not even that. It just has to provide it pre-installed on every x86 machine sold, or include it as part of a 'service pack' or 'seccurity' upgrade. Or it can cajole so-called computer secuirty public service announcements to neglect to mention other options.

Firefox is still doing well despite the fact that users have to take three non-passive actions: 1 ) actively seek it out and 2) download it and 3) install it. Also, large installations are reluctant to draw attention to themselves for fear of reprisal in the form of increased MS fees and such. There are, however, ways to hide from MS.

Desktop Search

[robstamack]

If Google and the Mozilla foundation are in bed together, why does the Google Desktop Search product support IE exclusively? If the Mozilla Foundation (or even Google) wanted to move users over to FireFox, they need to have guaranteed compatibility on most (if not all) applications.

And while I wouldn't call Google Desktop Search a 'vital' application for the majority of casual web users, it's a given that many core users switched to a competitor's Desktop Search product (read Copernic) when migrating to FireFox.

Re:Desktop Search

[Darthmalt]

Works just fine for me. Using firefox 1.0 set as the default browser and win XP.

Re:Desktop Search

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm running Google Desktop Search on Firefox, IE and Opera. Did you mean the Google Toolbar?

The Google Toolbar is a way of getting google into the IE interface. Firefox, mozilla and Opera all have a Google presence by default.

There is no reason for Google to make a search toolbar for Moz/FF/Opera as they already (essentially) have one.

If in the future another search engine eclipses Google, then we would expect the browser developers to change their default search engines. Only then would we be able to see if anything untoward is going on.

Re:Desktop Search

[evilviper]

why does the Google Desktop Search product support IE exclusively?

For the same reason you find pop-up blockers and PNG plug-ins only for IE... IE is the only major browser that doesn't already have this functionality built-in.

Firefox has a search box, and Mozilla allows you to search on terms entered into the URL/location bar, both use google by default. So why would google need to write add-on software for them?

Re:Desktop Search

[pipingguy]

Ever heard of Dave's Quick Search Deskbar? It predates (2002) all the other similar products (I "wrote" the Slashdot search for it, that's why it works so craptacularly).

Or are we talking about the same type of desktop search tool?

It's clear what Google's plans are

[DrJAKing]

They are going to produce a web-based browser.

Re:It's clear what Google's plans are

[Anonymous Coward]

They are going to produce a web-based browser

Indeed, creating a browser that can access the volumes of information on the web would be truly revolutionary.

Google/ Firefox Need To Start Full Disclosure

[cannuck]

One has to question the business ethics of Google and Firefox. According to Consumer Reports web site - 60% of www users using search engines don't realize that businesses are paying money to show up on the search page results. Google now makes 250 million profit per year from advertising. Yet nowhere on a Google search page result - does Google explain that Google accepts advertising money from businesses - enable those business web sites to show up in the search page results. Nor does Google explain that showing up first in a search - doesn't mean best. Nor does Google explain how the results happen. If you do a search with Google you will notice has just one vague word to tell the user that businesses are paying advertising fees - "sponsor". You will also notice that the layout and text colour is the same for the advertisers as the those web sites in the search results to the left. And just a faint blue - grey line separates the advertisers from the other results.Why is Google doing this? My allegation is that Google wants to pretend that searching on the web is just like going into an encyclopedia. But it is not. Google needs to: a) have a clear full disclosure statement on every page about the advertising b) have a clear disclosure statement about how the results appear - and that first doesn't mean best. c) that the "Sponsored Links" label be changed to "Paid Advertising" (just like newspapers and magazines). d) that the paid advertisers be in a red lined box. e) that all paid advertisers be shown in red text. f) disclose that other search engines use Google to place advertisers directly in the search results. Naturally Firefox needs to have a clear disclosure statement built into the header - explaining the relationship between Firefox and Google - with a link to a page that goes into the financial details between Google and Firefox. Here is a web page with a study that covers it all http://www.consumerwebwatch.org/dynamic/search-rep ort-disclosure-abstract.cfm

Re:Google/ Firefox Need To Start Full Disclosure

[Andrevan]

The right side isn't the search results, it's the sponsored links section. Advertisers never pay to be placed in the actual search results, unlike some other search engines. Whenever ads appear above the search results, they are in a different color.

Re:Google/ Firefox Need To Start Full Disclosure

[cannuck]

1) The paying advertisers list that appear on the right side of a Google page - is absolutely the result of the search. And again most www users searching don't know a link on the right side of a Google page is advertising. 2) Many other search engines use Google - often paying Google advertisers web sites show up directly in the search results of these other search engines. Is this news to Google? There needs to be a "Paid Advertising" tag attached to each and every advertisement - which follows the add no matter which search engine lists it. Enough smoke and mirrors.

Re:Google/ Firefox Need To Start Full Disclosure

[Gerv]

There needs to be a "Paid Advertising" tag attached to each and every advertisement

Er, you mean like the words "Sponsored Links", which appear clearly at the top of the vertical column of Google text ads, and to the right of the long horizontal ones? :-)

Gerv

Re:Google/ Firefox Need To Start Full Disclosure

[cannuck]

Er, I mean - like you see in every newspaper and magazine - whenever an advertisement appears that looks like a "story" - a distinct tag above the advertisement - "Paid Advertising". It's done to alert/warn the reader. The TAG is in each and every copy that day for a newspaper. In each copy for the month for the magazine. Again using the word "Sponsor" doesn't really ring a bell in the users mind - doesn't create the same alert - the same warning - but "Paid Advertisement" definitely does. Nothing like full disclosure.

Re:Google/ Firefox Need To Start Full Disclosure

[jericho4.0]

What the hell are you going on about? It says 'sponsored links'. That's pretty clear english. A small amount of research would turn up Googles statement that $$ for adwords will not effect search results (and it doesn't, as anyone with an addwords account can tell you). There is a clear seperation between ads and search results. There is a huge amount of knowledge on the web about how Google works, and it's widely respected and held up as a model of good practice. If an internet user is continually clicking on 'sponsered links' and thinking that she's getting search results, well, not everyone should drive a car, either.

Re:Google/ Firefox Need To Start Full Disclosure

[cannuck]

Hmm... did you read the study on the Consumers Report web site? Naturally you are much smarter than 60% of the people using the www search engines.

Re:Google/ Firefox Need To Start Full Disclosure

[jericho4.0]

From the study;

"Some engines, like Google - one of the few majors not named in the original FTC complaint - took pains to visually segregate paid results from non-paid results"

"This transformation of search results from impartial and algorithmic to commercial and advertising-driven went largely unnoticed by consumers, since there was little attempt -- with Google as a notable exception -- to distinguish between paid and non-paid placement listings. Disclosure of paid inclusion was essentially non-existent."

"Paid inclusion, on the other hand, represents a far more subtle and pervasive practice. Indeed, with a few notable exceptions (Google, AOL and Netscape), virtually every search engine uses paid inclusion for its main results,..."

"...a Google executive reiterated his company's deep-seated aversion to paid inclusion, which he denounced as a violation of consumer trust. "The only way to keep user trust is to keep a church-and-state divide between what is paid and non-paid," said Tim Armstrong, Google's vice president of advertising."

Where is your point, exactly? This is slashdot. We collectivly know a lot about Google, and generally hold it in pretty high regard. That, combined with the unreality of your argument, and the fact that your linked doc doesn't back you up, makes you a troll or FUD spreader. How stupid would you like us to make the internet? Should we have the user click on a button saying "I understand that the links returned might not be the best of all possible links expected"?

And I'm sorry, but if you can't read "Sponsored links" as "paid for" you are a fucking idiot.

Re:Google/ Firefox Need To Start Full Disclosure

[cannuck]

Look prick face - stop being a fascist apologist - and read the recommendations.

Re:Google/ Firefox Need To Start Full Disclosure

[jericho4.0]

I'm a "fascist apologist". Heh.

Your linked document proves you wrong. Google has never accepted paid listings in search results, and has always clearly deliniated results from ads. Fuck the "recommendations".

Re:Google/ Firefox Need To Start Full Disclosure

[hkmwbz]

I probably shouldn't be feeding the cannuck troll, but it needs to be pointed out that the ads are clearly marked as such, and completely separated from the actual search index.

The actual search results are not affected by who paid for what.

Re:Google/ Firefox Need To Start Full Disclosure

[cannuck]

Since 60% of web users - using search engines don't know that paid advertising exists on Google and other search engines - obviously Google and other search engines needs to change - it's that simple. Clear languaged, easily found disclosure statements are needed. Why doesn't Google do it? My allegation - they are afraid to - it doesn't mesh with the perceived branding that Google has orchestrated.

Re:Google/ Firefox Need To Start Full Disclosure

[hkmwbz]

There's no need for Google to change, since they have clearly labelled the sponsored results as such.

Re:Google/ Firefox Need To Start Full Disclosure

[cannuck]

Yes... yes.... Google shouldn't change the header from Sponsor to Paid Advertising - to explain that a business is paying to get it's advertisement listed on the search results page. Why? It will cost 6 tor 9 millions of dollars to get someone to go in to delete "Sponsor" and type in "Paid Advertisment". And it will cost another 6 to 9 million dollars to change the color of the header from blue to red. And another 6 or 9 million to mention that the search results on every page includes paid advertisements. Wow! That's 20-30 million! Even I could make the changes for Google for one dollar. The only real question to ask is : "why doesn't Goooogle do full disclosure?"

Re:Google/ Firefox Need To Start Full Disclosure

[hkmwbz]

There's no point in making it assault you every time you do a search. It's blue because it's calm and doesn't annoy the eye.

Tinfoil hat off, please.

Re:Google/ Firefox Need To Start Full Disclosure

[cannuck]

"Doesn't annoy the eye" - That menas that all STOP signs at road intersections should be "Sky Bue" instead of RED. Eh!! The only reason for camouflage is deception: Animals and people hide things for various reasons. Animals in nature hide their young to protect them from predators. Pirates hide stolen treasure to protect it from being stolen yet again. One of the most effective ways to hide something is by camouflaging it. Camouflage is the "art of concealment." It involves disguising an object, in plain sight, in order to hide it from something or someone.

Re:Google/ Firefox Need To Start Full Disclosure

[sophont]

I hope they don't listen to you.

There is nothing wrong with the Google results page.

Sure they have ads - at the opposite end of the page with a delimiting line and clearly marked as sponsored.

While sponsor can have other meanings, none of them mean "search results" and on the whole the context makes it quite clear that they are indeed paid ads.

I certainly would hate to see the nicely minimal Google pages cluttered by needless legal mumbo jumbo about the ads on the right side being ads and explain on every page what a page rank is.

Anybody who wants to know how Google works can find out easily enough: Just put "how google works" in Google and read all about it. It's not a secret. Of course it's not "best results" (how would that be determined - mind reading?) - just most connected. But it's the closest we currently get to best in an autmated way (if somebody has a better way - create a new search engine company and get rich).

As long as Google is not selling page rank (AFAIK they don't - unlike others) and doesn't mix the ads within the search results on the left side, there is no problem and your suggestions only would make the page more cluttered and less readable.
Well, changing the text from "Sponsored links" to "Paid Advertising" is no trouble, but doesn't make much difference either. Did anybody read "sponsored" as something other than paid for?

Re:Google/ Firefox Need To Start Full Disclosure

[cannuck]

How many shares of google do you own ;^? Hope you aren't designing web sites or designing software. Apparantly Usability is not on your radar.

A suggestion

[camcorder]

What about making google look better on Firefox but not on IE? Microsoft do that, msn pages look ugly as hell on FireFox even though they have the technology and the money to make it look same in FireFox as in IE. So if Google is strategically partner of mozilla foundation, whey it does not add some other goodies to firefox but keep interface untouched for IE?

Re:A suggestion

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, why not make Google and FF as evil as MS and IE. I guess the purpose of all software and all companies is to be pure evil right? Sounds like a world I'd love to live in. Everybody be as evil as they can, yay!

I also have a suggestion: You and everyone that thinks like you on any side of any argument can FOAD.

Re:A suggestion

[camcorder]

It's war man. And it's Microsoft that has started the war. It's like one side is nuking you every day and you just expect it to find the right way.

Re:A suggestion

[Ulric]

Because then they would lose visitors who use IE, which is still the dominant browser. They can't afford to do that. And even if they could, the shouldn't.

Re:A suggestion

[camcorder]

IE users won't get any harm of it. I don't tell to change pages for IE users, so they would get the regular pages, but for FireFox users they will get benefit of some technologies, it can be some clever css usage or searching conventions with the help of xul.

Re:A suggestion

[Ulric]

I still don't understand how that would benefit Google. The competition would immediately implement similar technology for everybody, and Google would be stuck with the minority users.

Re:A suggestion

[Adrilla]

It's can be viewed as unethical, and one of google's biggest features is it's ethics. It plays fair, and it shouldn't stoop to the level that microsoft (which most of us agree here, uses underhanded tactics) does. I, and I'm sure others would lose faith in the company if it started using some of the seedy tactics that make us hate MS and favoritism in browsers is one of those tactics.

Google Firefox! ^_^

[Elementalor]

Brand recognition in two words ;)

Re:Google Firefox! ^_^

[LiquidCoooled]

I have no qualms with that whatsoever :)
It capitalises on both distinct names and continues building upwards.

the fact they registered the gbrowser domain however seems to indicate they will do something else.

Re:Troll?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, "troll" is not the right word. I'd personally go with "stupid."

Seriously, do you people even understand how computers work? Putting a shell inside a browser accomplishes nothing. Ditto for media players, secure terminal emulators (wtf?) and office suites. If you want a bunch of random, excessive crap shoehorned into a single application that clearly wasn't designed for it, use emacs. Personally, I'll stick with my elegant, clean OS and browser. Please don't write software until you pick up a clue. That's how we got stuck with such wonders as X, which is the main reason I still use Windows. Microsoft may have its own problems, but they wouldn't try anything that dumb.

Goodwill is smart business

[Anonymous Coward]

Any business with long-term goals (instead of the "where to you want to be tomorrow" or "next quarter" that most public US companies have) should focus on goodwill.

Parent post suggess that these goals conflict; but the way I see it.

Goodwill = optimizing for the long term

Selling out your userbase = optimizing for the next quarterly results.

If google *did* sell out...

[tod_miller]

Then we would just have a fork that kept up with main branch releases, and removed the bollocks we didn't want.

that is all.

Re:Competition would be GOOD ... if there were som

[chris_mahan]

>It just has to provide it pre-installed on every x86 machine sold,

That's going to be hard with the knoppix cds I'm peppering my friends with.

Please speak for yourself:

[Kiyooka]

I don't know, how about Buddha? Or Ghandi? Or Mother Theresa? Or a million others that we'll never know about? Why do you choose a long-dead person in a book and insist that there were no others? How do you know the homeless person who died on a street corner last week didn't live a morally spotless life?

The problem with how some people accept religion in their lives is that it blinds them instead of opening their eyes.

I betcha if Jesus was still alive, he'd smack you upside the head to wake you up, just like a zen monk would.

(yes, call me flamebait if you wish, but at least please seriously consider what I am saying)

Re:Please speak for yourself:

[Gerv]

How do you know the homeless person who died on a street corner last week didn't live a morally spotless life?

Because no-one who is solely human can live a life totally pleasing to God. It's not possible. Ever since Adam and Eve, rebelling against God has been our default - what we do unless God is merciful towards us, reveals the truth about Jesus to us and sets us on the right road.

I betcha if Jesus was still alive, he'd smack you upside the head to wake you up, just like a zen monk would.

He is still alive.

Gerv

Re:Please speak for yourself:

[chris_mahan]

Yes, Gerv, we know.

Now, can we go back to news for nerds ?

Thanks.

Re:Please speak for yourself:

[crontab]

I don't know, how about Buddha? Or Ghandi?

That would be Gandhi, with the "dh" sounding like "there".

Quibbling aside, you make a good point about religion being blinding. It used to be mostly true of monotheistic religions, but is increasingly the case with Hindus and Buddhists.

Re:Please speak for yourself:

[pyro_dude]

Isn't one of the stages (of insight) along the Buddhist path "knowledge and vision?"

Didn't the Buddha talk about how thoughts of sensuality, ill will, and harmfulness blind us, but thoughts of renunciation, non-ill will (to be understood as not just absence of ill will but positive qualities of love and generosity), and harmlessness produce knowledge and vision?

Why yes, he did. In fact, right intention, one path factor of eight on the Buddhist path, is composed of intention to develp thoughts on each of these. How anyone following the Buddhist path could blind themselves with their religion (or way of life, whatever you like to call it), by practising it with intentions of gaining the goal is beyond me.

Re:Please speak for yourself:

[crontab]

No doubt. The problem is that we tend to view "our" way as being the only way, paradoxically, even among Hindus (where there is literally a pantheon). That arrogance, coupled with the need to "save" others that don't think like you is what I was referring to.

I can't believe that this conversation is on /.

Re:Please speak for yourself:

[pyro_dude]

No doubt. The problem is that we tend to view "our" way as being the only way, paradoxically, even among Hindus (where there is literally a pantheon).

I know the phenomenon you are talking about, if I'm right it works for each person too, and his age, race, nation, time (modern vs ancient, even decades), planet, its all correct or 'the one.' and theres little perspective from the outside. So its only natural it would apply to religion.

That arrogance, coupled with the need to "save" others that don't think like you is what I was referring to.

Personally I like to try to get people to be afterlife-agnostic, that's as far as I'll go unless they're a close friend. In that case I may suggest that they stop things that I deem would be bad for their future welfare with all the qualities of a friend to back me up (trust, past events), but I never try to make a convert.

I can't believe that this conversation is on /.

Well, I'm sort of a closet Buddhist, so this is how my interaction is starting out again instead of defending Linux or speculating about planets in space, but now that I think of it Slashdot doesn't exactly cover 'everything' (to say the least) so I guess you're right.

Re:Please speak for yourself:

[DeadScreenSky]

Oh, please don't use her as an example. You are welcome to think she was a great person or whatever you want, but her life was filled with morally questionable acts of all kinds. You simply cannot reasonably use her as an example of a "morally spotless life". This is a very interesting interview with Christopher Hitchens about his various 'exposés' about her. It paints a more complete picture in some ways.

In other news...

[Bequita]

...60% of web users cannot define "sponsor".

I find the evidence of user illiteracy far more disturbing than this FUD over "Sponsored Links".

Secret deal.

[jericho4.0]

In TFA, it says that the Mozilla Foundation would not reveal the extent of the deal with Google. Now, I like Firefox, and I like Google, but WTF? It's an OpenSource project. Why would I contribute if the project isn't public about it's deals with corporations? How can they even do this?

I'm not against Mozilla making deals, but they should be transparent.

Re:Secret deal.

[Gerv]

In TFA, it says that the Mozilla Foundation would not reveal the extent of the deal with Google.

No it doesn't. It says that I didn't reveal them. That's principally because I don't know them :-)

Having said that, I think it's perfectly reasonable for the commercial terms of the deal to be confidential, if Google wants it that way. The entire deal was confidential until the 1.0 release hit the streets, and no-one seems to mind about that.

Gerv

Re:Secret deal.

[jericho4.0]

Thanks for your response, Gerv.

I feel that an OSS project making secret deals with a corp goes against the spirit of OSS, regardless how respected the two parties are. How do I know that my contributions are not going to fall victim to a change in the code that was known of ahead of time by the parties 'in the know'. How do I know if you've made a deal with a company I have ethical issues about? What if I contribute something great and it goes on to make a bundle for MS?

I understand that a buisness might need to keep secrets from the market. Maybe the MPL/GPL/etc could address this issue directly, and codify what's allowed/expected. As it is, it seems that an outside developer can't count on anything.

That said, I personally find the concept of Google and Firefox working together very exiting, and am looking forward to the result.

Re:Secret deal.

[Gerv]

it seems that an outside developer can't count on anything.

You can count on what you've always counted on - the code is Free. Nothing mozilla.org, Google, Bill Gates or anyone else can do can change that.

That said, I personally find the concept of Google and Firefox working together very exiting, and am looking forward to the result.

Me too :-)

Gerv

so euhm is that why

[Anonymous Coward]

is that why a yahoo! toolbar was installed in to IE when I installed a macromedia plugin for firefox?

Do people not know what GDS is?

[Anonymous Coward]

Its Google Desktop Search and its a product that indexs your hard drive along with the following:

* Search email from Outlook 2000+ and Outlook Express 5+
* Search files in TXT, HTML, DOC, XLS, and PPT formats (Office 2000+)
* Search chats from AOL 7+ and AOL Instant Messenger 5+
* Search web pages viewed in Internet Explorer 5+

So as you can see No, it does NOT support Firefox like it does IE which is why I and many Firefox users don't use it. The people in charge as google said that "might support Firefox at a later date" but apparantly that means never.

I used to tell people to use google suggestion box where they could request firefox support for GDS. When GDS came out google actually suggested doing that and would take it under consideration if enough people showed interest. Well myself and many others did just that and asked for GDS to support Firefox and so far nothing. So you can understand why the grandparent is rightfully questioning what's going on with GDS and Linux.

Hopefully Beagle comes to Windows soon and blows away GDS.

That EPIC link...

[emseabrown]

Was definately worth watching.

Googlezon (a theoretical google/amazon merger) would have such powerful market potential. I can see it now.

Did you mean to buy this instead?

But would it happen? The models do not seem compatible. One recommends what others actually purchased and offers consumer reviews, the other is marketing supplied by the manufacturer.

not-for-profit?

[Anonymous Coward]

... but I can't think of a single, not-for-profit tech company ...

Um ... don't look now, but I think "for-profit company" or "profit-seeking company" is what you have in mind. That, or I'm seriously clueless about Google, Microsoft, etc's goals ...

bye bye firefox

[vehakki]

i will either go back to ie (at least i know evil is evil, no need for extra brain power to know intentions and undisclosed deals) or find a real free opensource little browser.

Why the restrictions? What they should be doing...

[josh drvsh]

I'd like to see what the logic is behind the local build restrictions, it doesn't on the face of it, make sense to me.

Personally, I'm looking forward to the Firefox plugin which will allow the user to select inside any web based search field to be included in the toolbar drop down menu for specific searches, ala Icab. (http://www.icab.de) In this way the user can use every kind of google search there is,(and others) right from the toolbar.

Bad UI design of Google search box

[edxwelch]

If google is really paying them so much money, maybe they should have done a better job on the UI. The google search box is in the least accessible part of the screen, way over on the extreem right, it's too small and it's difficult to clear out old search result.s

Re:Bad UI design of Google search box

[sophont]

Difficult?

You mean like Ctrl-k or a simple click?

To clear out: Ctrl-k, Backspace.

That's dificult?

Re:Bad UI design of Google search box

[edxwelch]

Yes, because you have to read through documentation to find out what the shortcut is. It would be better just to make it bigger and make clicking on the G highlight text

defining evil

[gad_zuki!]

I breathe polluted air, so according to your logic I can't complain about the polluters.

Granted, I have no choice, literally, and the monopolization of hardware and software are related. Not the best example, but one that serves up the point.

You're also saying "You guys complain about the government, but are citizens!" Again, it should be obvious that this isnt really hypocrisy and that users/stakeholders have more of a interest in getting their complaints heard than non-users.

I think the core of the "evil" argument is the lack of regulation. Very few privacy protecting laws. The failure to do anything about the MS monopoly. The google cache which stores copyrighted data. The never expiring google tracking cookie. The spyware madness. The spam epidemic. The lack of disclosure of security violations in computer systems, especially for banks and other finanical institutions. Shady marketing practices. Poor product quality and return policies. EULAs. Shrink-wrap "licenses."

Of course "evil" is a loaded religious word, but there certainly is an argument to be said about the status quo and the lack of proper regulation to protect the consumer.

>On the one hand ranting about evil cooperations and on the other hand trying to feed from their hands....

Moving to the forest or somesuch and giving up on technology is both defeatist and counter-productive. We need these tools just to get by.

Re:defining evil

[karakal]

> I breathe polluted air, so according to your logic I can't complain about the polluters. You didn't get the point of my argument. You can complain about pollution or polluters, but you can NOT drive then a big pickup, which consumes 20 to 30 litres per kilometer (which is 4 to 6 times more than my car, which is also big, but I live in Europe) > Granted, I have no choice, literally, and the monopolization of hardware and software are related. Not the best example, but one that serves up the point. Whenever something new comes up, some new CPU (e.g. Transmeta), some new Operating System (e.g. BeOS) noone bothers to think one minute about buying one of these. IMHO you have/had enough choices. If you look at the history of PCs and Software there was always a better choice, which didn't win any points. > I think the core of the "evil" argument is the lack of regulation. Very few privacy protecting laws. The failure to do anything about the MS monopoly. The google cache which stores copyrighted data. The never expiring google tracking cookie. The spyware madness. The spam epidemic. The lack of disclosure of security violations in computer systems, especially for banks and other finanical institutions. Shady marketing practices. Poor product quality and return policies. EULAs. Shrink-wrap "licenses." Most of these things came out of "no regulation" from the "land of the brave and the unlimited freedom". Yes, you must not show your identity, you have not to tell the government where you live and so on. But this lack of regulation is also applied, where there is a immident need of regulation: in the "free" economy. > Moving to the forest or somesuch and giving up on technology is both defeatist and counter-productive. We need these tools just to get by. I own a business, which earns its money with computer and software (oh yes, I am "evil" too *harhar*). But I really don't think, that computers did anything to improve social life, lifestyle, feed children in third world countries. They are tools, which makes people not necessary any more, no more, no less.

Re:defining evil

[karakal]

Have I said, that I hate /. for not being possible to edit posts?

I'd be.. cynical

[astralbat]

Partnerships with private companies are not a good thing. I'm already suprised to hear that the default search engine is not changeable for certain locales!

What happens when another search engine comes along and people wanna change to that? Coming from the Mozilla foundation who are promoting FREEDOM this sounds WRONG! Lock-in's are bad bad bad!

With all this potential money for the foundation out there, it had better not become greedy. It's main focus should always be creating a free and flexible browser for the users. It should not get it's objectives confused.

Re:I'd be.. cynical

[Gerv]

Partnerships with private companies are not a good thing. I'm already suprised to hear that the default search engine is not changeable for certain locales!

That's a mistake in the article - localisers for official mozilla.org builds are allowed and encouraged to change to the localised version of Google.

What happens when another search engine comes along and people wanna change to that? Coming from the Mozilla foundation who are promoting FREEDOM this sounds WRONG! Lock-in's are bad bad bad!

You can change the search engine to anything you like.

Gerv

You need this extension

[sbszine]

Clicky.

I think Google should fork Mono

[melted]

Managed code is the future. XUL is great and shit, but some things you just can't do in XUL. You'll have to download extensions of some kind. These extensions better be sandboxed and have a verifiable security model. .NET has all this, and it's also an ECMA standard.

Why not Java you might ask? Simply because it's a non-standard language specs to which are controlled by Sun. Plus, compared to C#/.NET Java looks like a bunch of amateur bullshit.

Hey Zeeeeuuus!

[Anonymous Coward]

I betcha if Jesus was still alive, he'd smack you upside the head to wake you up, just like a zen monk would.

He is still alive.

Of course he is, he's my gardener!

Slightly OT question with regards to Firefox &

[subsailor]

Why does the left sidebar on /. run over into the comments/articles when viewed on Firefox, but not when viewed on IE?

Re:Slightly OT question with regards to Firefox &a

[Anonymous Coward]

Why does the left sidebar on /. run over into the comments/articles when viewed on Firefox, but not when viewed on IE?

Because of a reflow bug in Gecko. It's fixed on the trunk now (been fixed for months actually) so all will be fine in Firefox 1.1 (due June).

Re:Slightly OT question with regards to Firefox &a

[subsailor]

Hmmm...I just upped to FF 1.01, on 1.0 /. looked fine (well, sometimes it was garbled up and smashed together, but a reload would fix it). Now it doesn't smash the sections together, but the one side (left) only started "overlapping" since going to 1.01. Not a huge deal, but I was rather surprised that a site like /. didn't display right on a browser like FF.

I'd still pick FF over IE any day of the week and twice on Sunday :)

Yeah?

[Anonymous Coward]

So just what the fuck is wrong with having Google links in your Bookmarks folder in a fresh install? Just go there and delete it.

If Google is going to pay the Mozilla Foundation to put some links in, I don't see anything wrong with it. Just go there, and delete the fucking thing if you don't want it. A minute's job at the most.

I simply hate people who go on and on about silly shitty things that take half a fucking second to get over.

I Type S--T Into Google Interesting Advertisement

[cannuck]

I type "shit" into Google to see which paid advertisements would show up on the search results page . Here it is: Cheap Auto Insurance Put Hundreds of Dollars Back In Your Pockets. Takes 3 min. www.KnowledgeDirectory.org

IE problems with Gmail

[BRUTICUS]

Well, im not sure if this is the fault of Gmail or IE but many times I can NOT attach a file in Gmail using Internet Explorer.

I have to load up Firefox and do it.

Full Disclosure, Camouflage:The Art Of Concealment

[cannuck]

"Camouflage is the "art of concealment." It involves disguising an object, in plain sight, in order to hide it from something or someone. We generally think of camouflage as being used during war. Soldiers often wear special camouflage clothing and smear mud on their faces at night to become less visible. But, camouflage exists in many other forms in the natural world. A chameleon, for instance, changes color to blend in with its environment. A white polar bear is hard to see on an ice fole as is a striped zebra in the African bush. Animals basically use one of two methods to conceal themselves in nature: general resemblance and special resemblance. With general resemblance, animals use color to blend in with their habitat so that they're almost invisible. Besides chameleons, other animals that use color to match their surroundings include hares, tree frogs, flounder fish, grasshoppers, and lizards. With special resemblance, animals use a combination of color, shape and behavior to help them appear like something in their habitat. They are simply mistaken for something else. The walking stick is a great example. This insect becomes almost invisible due to the shape of its body, its coloration and its slow movement. It looks and acts just like a twig on a bush or tree. Some animals have special markings that help to disguise their shapes. The zebra, for instance, has markings that run off its edges into the background. This feature allows the zebra to fade into the background so successfully its difficult to see its overall shape. Just imagine how confusing a herd of zebras must be to a predator. Other animals that use special resemblance to conceal themselves include giraffes, leopards, praying manatees, snakes, butterflies and moths, caterpillars, and spiders." And then there's animals on the www - hmm.. how do they conceal things!?

Blogger Just another proof

[njko]

all of blogger developers use Firefox, and they put a nice link on his page 6% use Mozilla Firefox; an up-and-comer, which we all use internally http://help.blogger.com/bin/answer.py?answer=930/

Trojan

[Anonymous Coward]

Has anyone else been affected by the Dropper.Exebundle.AH that likes to attach itself to Mozilla files?

Just wondering.

Maybe I need an MBA

[tod_miller]

Because my logic centers are still functioning.

If you drive a company by profits, you can die by profits. If you drive a company by 'maximize shareholder wealth' it depends what that means.

Profits are fundamentally important. But Starbucks is profit driven *after* is was coffee driven, and after it spread because its coffee was good, or was it because people will drink anything if it is 10 ft closer than the next place?

Anyway, I always thought the customer played a part somewhere in the equation, at least in the long run.

It will never be bye bye microsoft, but it will be bye bye M$ (as in the monolithic monopoly of today), it'll take 15-20 years, but I can wait. (except if they can really hijack legalities like the Telcos and the VoIP's and the FCC.)

literalist interpretation of the bible != insight

[javaxman]

Such literalist interpretations of scripture are far from insightful.

The resurrection could be a metaphor, and it would not make Christianity a "waste of time". It would make it what it is- a mythology designed to make you feel like you have a place and a connection in an otherwise chaotic and confusing universe.

To view the bible as anything other than a bunch of oral tradition stories transcribed by monks is to make it something more than we can know it to be.

The veracity of those stories is unrelated to their meaning. The truth in those stories and a person's ability to have faith in their truth ( and god ) has been a topic of consideration of biblical scholars well before Thomas Aquinas. If you don't have doubt, it's not likely you really have real faith- blind obedience is not the same as faith. Faith is tested constantly - if you believe despite the contrary evidence, then you have faith. If you just dismiss the contrary evidence, you haven't allowed your faith to be tested.

If Jesus were shown to be an amalgam of several prophets, and your belief in god crumbled away as a result, how strong was your faith in the first place? Does the fact of biological evolution preclude the existence of deity? Religion is not science, and should not be made to be - such faith is based on the unknowable, by definition. Science is about what we can know, by contrast.

Why are you guys talking about this in a discussion of Google's relationship to Firefox? I've heard of off-topic, but that's ridiculous.