Slashdot Mirror
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."
.. very happy if Google funded me. A very respected company that just works and keeps it that way. Keep the relationship Mozilla :)
"Sweet llamas of the Bahamas !"
Hopefully the relationship between Google and Firefox will continue to put pressure on Microsoft to build a better browser.
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?
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.
10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then
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
When will I end this grieving ? When will my future begin ?
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.
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
liqbase
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?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
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.
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.
Amazing magic tricks
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"!
"Is this Winkhorst a nova criminal?" "No just a technical sergeant wanted for interrogation."
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?
...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!
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?
Who said Freedom was Fair?
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....
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.
Its not what it is, its something else.
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.
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
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)