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."
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.
Maybe Google will just take over Firefox and turn it into gBrowser, fully integrated with Gmail, Desktop Search and other stuff.
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.
i wish i was but oh well
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.Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur
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.)
Just
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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: ).
Have you ever been to a turkish prison?
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.