Slashdot Mirror
Inquirer Blasts Mozilla for Microsoft-Style Bashing
DoubleWhopper writes "An article over at The Inquirer blasts Mozilla and "lead Firefox engineer" Ben Goodger for resorting to Microsoft-style bashing of Netscape for their recent flawed release. After posting excerpts if scathing comments from readers of Goodger's own blog, the author comments, "I wonder why should companies contribute or fund the Mozilla Foundation, if any derivative work or redistribution of the Foundation's browsers they create is going to raise the FUD mocking and anger of Mozilla's 'lead engineer'". This after Christopher Aillon's (of RedHat) reaction last week."
It's not FUD when it's true.
"I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
The Inquirer blasts Mozilla and "lead Firefox engineer"
As if the Inquirer hasn't done any blasting themselves?
As if the Inquirier is a reputable media source. How many time have they been sued?
There's a pretty big difference between bashing somebody for a malicious intent, and bashing someone because they need to get bashed. From the article, it seems like AOL put out a fixed version of the browser a day after he made the comments.
Perhaps if he'd known Netscape was going to put out a new browser, he'd have refrained from making those comments. But he probably didn't. Anyway, he was still correct (by a day)
Security is more important then people's feelings.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
We've got a link to two old Slashdot stories, the Inquirer's main page, and the Inquirer article to which this article is alluding. You people need to start including the actual articles that you're talking about so I can bitch at people for not RTFA when they post comments.
"I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
sometimes you have to seperate the art from the artist. e.e. cummings ended up saying some really nasty things, but his poetry is amazing. We should apply the same license to others we meet -- there *is* a difference between the art and the artist.
Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm
... was hardly wrong. Here it is, verbatim from his blog:
If security is important to you, this demonstration should show that browsers that are redistributions of the official Mozilla releases are never going to give you security updates as quickly as Mozilla will itself for its supported products.
Now, if it is true that Netscape is a "redistribution" of Firefox (Netscape says it is), its only fair to comment that if FF is updated, it will be some time before Netscape is. I wouldn't call it Microsoft-style bashing.
I don't want to read
Even if you agree with the guy, Mozilla relies on donations from people and corporations to stay afloat. Most of that, I'm willing to bet, comes from corporations. If you disagree with the way a release is going you have a right to say something, but make it private instead of scathingly public, especially if it's against the person that pays your bills.
The Inquirer? The same Inquirer that blasts Brittany when she's caught not wearing make-up is complaining about Mozilla's bashing?
Oh, wait, wrong tabloid...
Developers: We can use your help.
"Mozilla Foundation to ban Firefox derivative browsers?" is the headline for the second article. First of all, Mozilla Foundation can't, because of the license of their code (and if they were to relicense it, they likely would face an XFree86-like split). Secondly, they're not: this is just one developer (albeit a prominent one) making a comment on his blog about the security of Netscape's. I fail to see the big deal here.
In the beginning the universe was created. This made a lot of people very angry and is widely considered as a bad move.
He was totally justified with what he said. Netscape released their version based on a release of Firefox with security holes when a patched version of Firefox already existed.
;)
It can create a bad impression on Mozilla applications if other apps that proudly boast that they're based on such apps don't release updates in a timely manner.
On another note, it's quite possible that Netscape are breaking the Mozilla trademark guidelines. The application should have said something like based on Gecko rather than based on Firefox because after all the Netscape bloat adding it looks nothing like Firefox.
Still nothing is as innovative as IE
Why does "bashing" get such a bad rap these days? Is it because small groups pumping worthless products monopolize both their industries and access to the media? So powerful attacks - especially the most powerful, simple truth - are merely branded "bashing", and dismissed precisely for their power and accuracy. Competition is a bashing affair. We don't want competitors backing each other up, ignoring one another's shortcomings. That's known as a "cartel". Bash on, for the greater good!
--
make install -not war
Calling a spade a spade isn't necessarily a bad thing. Especially when you're right.
I'm not a troll, but I play one on Slashdot.
I disagree. And this is why people are fleeing traditional news outlets. Where was a time when, when you asked people why they wanted to be journalists, they would recite a line about being interested in the truth. This isn't the case any more. Now they want to change the world and make a difference.
Investigative journalism used to be about fact-finding and ferreting out the truth from a web lies woven by powerful people. Now it's about furthering an agenda (both the Left and Right are guilty of this, so don't think I'm attacking you and your political offiliation).
The fact that you say here that it's the "job" of the news to bash stuff affirms this in my mind. I don't think the news is about criticism, it's about finding truth (yeah, we can wax philosophical here about the nature and unattainability of truth, just play along) and reporting it. Bias is inevitable, but recently our various media outlets have been found to be deliberately reporting lies or omiting specific truths to further an agenda. You've got the White House hiring reporters to write stories as though they were done by independent journalists. You've got the Department of Defense issuing carbon-copy letters for soldiers to "send home" to their newspapers praising the good work of Iraq. You've got NBC blowing up trucks, CBS issuing reports based on false documents, and dozens of reporters around the country being fired for just flat out manufacturing stories, quotes, and events.
These crimes of journalism are committed by people who want to change the world, not discover and report truth. Whenever somebody says they want to "change the world" or "improve the human condition", you can bet that it's codespeak for "recreate society based on my idea of what a sociey should be." And we have a word for such authoritarian views of what people should want and be: fascism.
"I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
The FA is basically a flame on Ben Goodger's comments. It's much akin to a puerile 16 year old making comments to piss everyone off (oh shit - I must have just insulted a large demographic of OSDN!)
The article goes on to basically "right" Ben's "wrongs" and eventually concludes with an update taht Mozilla Foundation contacted The Inquirer to inform them that Ben Gooder is not a MoFo employee.
And to think, I will never get the time added back on to my life for wasting time reading that article.
At the same time the article is itself a FUD and sort of repulsive for the same reasons of the first, only more so because Goodger can at least make a claim to having the users best interests at heart while the Inquirer would pour gasoline on a blazing inferno if it'd sell, in this case taking it to almost epically stupid proportions:
You dumbass. You just quoted all of the people in his freaking blog that thought Goodger's post was crap. Read your own stupid story.
This was taken out of context.
8 .html
Ben was likely annoyed about Netscape.com's alert about Firefox 1.0.4 being out of date. The alert told users to install 8.0 which was based on Firefox 1.0.3 which had securtiy issues.
Netcape.com has resolved the issue of telling Firefox users to update their browser.
Asa's post about the alert with screen shot.
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/asa/archives/00817
These people look deep within my soul and assign me a number based upon the order I joined. -Homer Simpson
From TFA:
The Mozilla Foundation got in touch with me to let me know that Ben Goodger currently is not an employee of this organization, something I've heard before. [...] It shouldnt be surprising then that due to Goodgers past at the Foundation and his involvement in leading the Firefox browser development, his words are often misinterpreted as representing the project.
When an open-source project grows popular (and therefore its community gains some power) the press will begin to pay some attention and publicizing quotes and statements. Unfortunately, the press usually represents any community as monolithic entity. Often, it's not such a big problem, but here Mozilla is competing with giant corporations and so the press tends to equate the mozilla community with a corporation.
Goodger make a perfectly valid statement which reflects his viewpoint of the Mozilla project. However, Goodger isn't a paid employee of the Mozilla Foundation. He is basically a highly involved community member. If the Register wants to report on his opinions, that's fine, but please don't presume that he is speaking for the community or the Mozilla Foundation.
Well, he spoke the truth. If you want to be the most safe and secure, use Firefox and upgrade when security fixes are released. Netscape will always being running behind.
Now, if I could only I could convince our IT managers that Netscape is a redistribution of Firefox, I'd be set. Getting yelled at for using Firefox and being told to use Netscape instead makes my head hurt.
Well, as a writer for the Inq, I can say that as far as I have seen, the answer is zero. We get nasty letters all the time, but nothing ever went to court, at least that I can recall.
Then again, what does suits have to do with anything? Does getting sued make a company bad? That would mean car companies must be evil because they get sued all the time, same with IBM. Now, the flip side of that arguement is that people suing must be right and viruous, so that would make SCO a champion of the truth, eh?
-Charlie
Why did AOL release a browser, based on a version of firefox that had security vulnerabilities, while a fixed version was available? Don't tell me it was because they developed especifically against 1.03, because they released a patch the next day.
Why couldn't they simply wait a day? Instead of commenting back and forth about what the developer said, everyone should have asked that question.
Basically, AOL did something stupid, a developer responded to it, and now this gets taken out of context.
Open Source Java Web Forum with LDAP authentication
Something can be legal and moral and STUPID. Stating a truth isn't always smart or even necessary. For example, I don't go up to handicapped people and say "Pardon me, but you have no legs." Mainly because it accomplishes nothing.
When one feels compelled to make criticisms about something, one might question what the motivation is. Self-aggrandizement generally isn't be best one. In this case, no one using Firefox or Mozilla did so after seriously questioning Netscape. Netscape mainly sucks. Anyone reading his article would almost certainly 1) know this, and 2) agree. So what did he accomplish? No one was educated. No one was swayed. Not only that, his comments have been revealed as rather disingenious, being that the bugs are Firefox/Mozilla's to begin with.
Bottom line, he made himself look like a complete ass without accomplishing anything. Yes, as we all know and you really don't need to remind us, the 1st amendment protects his rights, but doesn't protect him from being an ass.
From his blog:
/. For example, let me ask you this: Are global warming activists spreading FUD? The history of some would seem to indicate so. Does it make it any less of an argument for them to make it?
If security is important to you, this demonstration should show that browsers that are redistributions of the official Mozilla releases are never going to give you security updates as quickly as Mozilla will itself for its supported products.
The above statement is: True.
From the 10 immutable laws of security:
Law #3: If a bad guy has unrestricted physical access to your computer, it's not your computer anymore.
The above statement is: True.
Either of these could be viewed as FUD, because it requires the reader have a level of paranoia or fear. It is whether or not someone chooses to believe them that makes the FUD different.
IMHO, this shouldn't even be newsworthy enough for Slashdot to cover. As stated by others, this guy isn't even part of the Mozilla Foundation and this is more an attack on one person's comments than the foundation as a whole.
They make a very good point, Firefox contains the latest code and the latest security updates. AOL and Netscape can use their code, but ultimately, if a user's top priority is security, they should probably be using the browser first to be updated.
The only reason why someone should use Netscape or the AOL browser is if they *have* to, or if those browsers offer some feature that Firefox doesn't currently have.
There's a lot of FUD slung from both commercial and open source developers, I don't see why this term has become *the* definition of "evil" on
It's no longer enough to refer to it as simple criticism. Now whenever someone complains about someone else, it spreads to all the major news sites under the title "x blasts y".
However, one must remember that those who are indecisive and are arguing internally are often defeated by groups who put aside their differences to kill a common enemy.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
We apologize. Those that have been in charge of the blasting the blasted have been blasted.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.