Firefox Community, Sickly Out of Control

darlingbuddy writes "After users started reporting Firefox's 150 million+ downloads, this article mentions why it's a bad move on the community's part. The author writes, "I'm proud of the community that pitched in enough donations for Firefox to get a full-page advertisement in The New York Times print edition, and I'm delighted to see them think of creative ideas for promotion, but reporting total downloads every so often and immaturely degrading Internet Explorer is ridiculous. The thing with these numbers is that they are misleading at best, and the only thing they accomplish is immature fanboyism. It's a fact that Internet Explorer is inferior to Firefox with its extensive collection of extensions and ability to support qualified web standards, but does the community need to resort to using third-class promotional tactics with total downloads number?"

Comments

I call troll

[bj8rn]

This story is nothing but a blatant troll. It has no content other than "the Firefox community are immature". The only proof the author offers to support his claim is that "the number of total Firefox downloads is misleading". I can't really tell what one has to do with the other, as the author has sort of jumped to the conclusion...nay, not even that. He's first come up with the idea that the members of the Firefox community are immature, and only then tried to come up with "arguments" to prove this.

Personally, I can't see anything wrong with the promotional tactics "criticized" in the article. It is, after all, an easier way to get the message across than the ones the author of the article suggests ("Release updates, innovative extensions and add interesting features (not necessary by default) to promote with value", which, while a good thing, is hardly a good way to promote Firefox).

Yeah, I know, I shouldn't have fed the troll. But it felt so bloody good I just couldn't help myself :7

Re:I call troll

[deanj]

Any browser number out there is misleading anyway, Firefox, IE, or otherwise. It's the number of users that matters.

Think of how many computers each person uses, and how many firefox initial installations that counts for. Then add the upgrades, which are sometimes new downloads.

They should just keep improving the browser, and let their work speak for itself. It's been working well so far.

Re:I call troll

[drgonzo59]

Good point. I wish there was a way to moderate stories. Go below 1, and "bye-bye" -- story is gone from the front page.

And what is so wrong with reporting how many times the browser has been downloaded? There is obviously some correlation between the number of downloads and the number of users using it. One way to get people to try something is to tell them that a million other people just like them, already did it. It shows that the product works. Criticism (and self criticism) is useful only when it is meaningful and not just "OMG, teh Firef0x people iz s000 imature! We n33d to b3 teh profeshin5l like B1ll Gat3z!!!!!"

Re:I call troll

[Pneuma ROCKS]

Yes. Furthermore, the actions of a few cannot be generalized as the "Firefox community". I'm a regular contributor at SFX (spreadfirefox) and there's a lot of people who help spread the word in amazing ways. But there are also a couple of members, every now and then, that come up with stupid childish ways of "forcing" people into using Firefox. Some will add a persistent nagging popup that IE won't filter, telling their visitor to download Firefox. Others will just go on and on ranting about IE and Microsoft. In my opinion, Firefox and Mozilla have enough merit to stand on their own. People don't need to bad mouth IE to convince others to use Firefox. IE was good a long time ago, and it will be significantly better when version 7 is released. I will still prefer Firefox for several reasons, but I won't mind people switching back. I think the Firefox community should not (and so far is not) pushing Firefox to the users, but rather promotion freedom of choice. More importantly, we're showing people they have a choice. The download numbers are just a good way to establish milestones and celebrate within the community. They may not mean much, but I don't see how they are in any way trolling.

Re:I call troll

[sbrown123]

There's one crucial difference: honesty.

Mozilla is honest. The figure they give is how many downloads they have counted . Now, how many of those downloads were from unique users? Thats a mystery there.

McDonalds has for years advertised they have served "millions" and later "billions" of people. Interestingly, they never spent the time to figure out that some of those billions served were sometimes the same people going back for more (sick bastards). But that fact doesn't matter since the truth is that McDonalds "served" that many people, not "served" that many unique people. And McDonalds is an advertising monster! They thought advertising the number served was a good idea. Probably 99.9% of Americans today know of that particular advertisement. That advertisement campaign was sooo good we all remember it! So, your idea that number counting in advertisements is not an effective means of promotion you are really, really wrong in that assumption.

Re:I call troll

[bj8rn]

If you accept that download figures are meaningless (and I don't se you arguing that point), then what on earth is the point of making a big fuss over them, if not to mislead people?

I agree that the download figures are meaningless. However, I can't see how quoting these figures is worse than any other trick used in advertising. Of course one can keep using this kind of rhetorics for only so long; at one point, they will have to come up with something new, at which point the community will start chanting the new slogan. But I still can't see how this is a sign of them being immature.

Re:I call troll

[LiquidCoooled]

According to the slash tag beta thingy, we will be able to identify both articles and comments using our own tags.

Some will have meaning in the system:


We're going to build the next generation of moderation on top of tags. That means we're going to poach your namespace. Some tags will have a substantive effect on the system right from the start (or very soon). Our article tagger will know about tags like "dupe" or "typo". When we roll out tagging on comments, we will teach it "troll" and "informative". These tags can have a meaning in the system. And when you come up with ways of using tags that we haven't anticipated, we will bring them into the system.


Hopefully this will mean we can reduce troll/fud/dupe articles from full items down to identified mini ones or even removed completely.

Back ontopic, I agree with you that this article is complete FUD.

Re:I call troll

[KarateExplosions]

And then the question becomes... Is McDonald's more immature for advertising how many billions they've served (obviously meaning burgers, not people), or for having a clown for a spokesman?

Re:I call troll

[toofast]

Actually, McDonalds doesn't claim to have served "people" - they simply claim "xx billions served". In this case, I think it's more logical to assume they're refering to orders.

As long as Mozilla do like McDonalds - claim "millions of downloads", not "millions of people downloaded" they'll be okay.

Re:I call troll

[Bogtha]

Mozilla is honest. The figure they give is how many downloads they have counted.

It's not stating how many downloads there have been that is dishonest. It's issuing press releases like this about it that is dishonest.

Pretend you know nothing about HTTP and distribution methods, and read that press release.

Firefox adoption numbers have exceeded expectations with more than 100 million downloads

Do you really think that isn't misleading? That it doesn't make the average person think that there are 100 million users?

Our community of more than 100,000 Firefox developers, testers, and grassroots marketers, is rejuvenating Web browsing, which is why millions of new users make the jump to Firefox every week. Spread Firefox members look forward to the next 100 million downloads as they mobilize for the exciting new release of Firefox 1.5.

Where did this "millions of new users every week" figure come from? Is it directly taken from the download figures? 100 million downloads over the course of a year is about 2 million per week. It certainly looks as if they are equating downloads with new users to me.

Now bring back your memories of HTTP and distribution methods. Read that press release again, and ask yourself why the big fuss over some arbitrary figure that doesn't correspond to adoption levels. Why is this worthy of a press release, if not to mislead?

Re:I call troll

[AviLazar]

He's first come up with the idea that the members of the Firefox community are immature, and only then tried to come up with "arguments" to prove this.

Well, I can't comment on the article itself - since it has been /.'d, but I can say this...in argument you typically make your premise then you go on to prove it. It would be odd to make your proof and then your premise. If your statement is correct, then the author took the proper method of writing his article. First he says "Wa wa wa" then he says "wa wa wa because of this proof" Now this is not saying he didn't do a poor job in the proof department (again I haven't read the article) but according to your statement, he is correct.

Re:I call troll

[Zeinfeld]

Good god, yes. I wish there was some wat to vote down these stories.

I wish that there was a way to eliminate the editors entirely and put everything on autopilot. Let the readers choose the stories, let the readers decide what topics are important.

But this is an example of the good side of having editors. Usually Slashdot is non-stop pumping for open source. It is the Fox News or the Air America of Open Source software. There may have been a point to that stance in the 1990s. Today it gets a little tiresome.

I think that it is a mistake for Firefox to mention IE for the same reason that the Oscars presenters should not have mentioned the word DVD all night: running down the competition makes you look cheap and scared.

I never ever mention my competition in an interview. If I am asked a direct question I tell the interviewer the competitor will have to speak for themselves, then I bridge to the positive message I want to get out.

I regularly attend meetings with firefox developers and IE developers in the same room. You would be amazed at how well everyone gets on. If you talk to Linus or any of the people at the center of the successful OSS projects of the past ten years it is amazing how reasonable everyone is in an industry which does not exactly have a reputation for reasonableness.

There are well known ultras of course, but they tend not to write code. I can only think of one well known ultra who produced a significant body of code and that was a long time ago.

Ultras are a problem for every political movement. People think that the way to get attention is to be as extreme and as uncompromising as possible. If you are a libertarian, a leftie, an environmentalist you soon learn how easy it is to play that particular game.

Re:I call troll

[Bogtha]

I wish that there was a way to eliminate the editors entirely and put everything on autopilot. Let the readers choose the stories, let the readers decide what topics are important.

This is exactly how Digg operates. Unfortunately, you are overestimating just how useful other readers are in determining which topics are important. Turns out, most people are idiots, and this is reflected in the stories that make it to the front page. The only real difference with Slashdot is that you can hold somebody accountable for the idiocy.

I think a hybrid approach would be better. Let Digg-style voting filter the unpopular articles away, and then let a group of site editors fix the writeup and decide which make it to the front page.

Re:I call troll

[bj8rn]

"The Firefox community are a bunch of immature fanbois" hardly qualifies as a correct premise in my book, as I can't see how you can prove a statement like this. Had he simply said that he found the Firefox ads immoral as the use of statistics was misleading, it'd have been something he could have made arguments for or against that I could have agreed or disagreed with. But it seems to me that his intention was simply to rant about how the Firefox community suck, not to make a proper argument for or against something.

Re:I call troll

[flyingsquid]

Do you really think that isn't misleading?

Breaking news: advertisement misleading, report at 11.

Re:I call troll

[Eivind]

You don't get the point. We all know that lots of advertising is immoral, misleading, immature, bullshit.

You can't argue that something is OK because it's similar to something else that's *NOT* OK.

Unless, offcourse, you subscribe to "It's ok to be evil as long as the other guy is too", or "aslong as we can be favourably compared to McD we're ok." or "sure we're lying, but that's common in advertising, so it's ok" or some other such nonsense.

"Millions of new users every week" *is* misleading. It's simply not true. There are about 2 million *downloads* a week, but atleast half of those are likely to be existing users upgrading or installing on multiple machines.

So, it's a lie. And that's nok ok -- not even if the other guys are lying too.

Re:I call troll

[srw]

Where did this "millions of new users every week" figure come from? Is it directly taken from the download figures? 100 million downloads over the course of a year is about 2 million per week. It certainly looks as if they are equating downloads with new users to me.

Can you come up with a better way to estimate "new users"? I, for one, installed Firefox for over 600 users from a single download. Maybe there's more than 2 million new users per week. (I suspect there were, at the time of that article, as simply averaging it out over a year is just plain silly. We all know it hit a frenzy for a while, and has probably slowed down now.)

Re:I call troll

[Fnkmaster]

Citing Socrates' thoughts on truth in a discussion about marketing and PR is absurd. It's a press release. It's marketing tripe. Just because Mozilla is a non-profit doesn't mean they are above marketing. As another poster pointed out, McDonald's claims billions and billions served, and it's equally ambiguous and potentially "misleading".

Marketing material is supposed to convince you to use a product. Certain markets exhibit inherent features known as demand-side increasing returns. Browsers are an example of such a market. In these markets, gaining market share by convincing users of the inevitability of your market share gain is actually the most logical strategy.

Clearly if you believe that strict honesty is a moral absolute, then you must inherently oppose any and all marketing efforts for any and all products. I would imagine it would be hard to be successful in a capitalist world with that sort of belief system.

If Mozilla can convince people that Firefox is dominating, and therefore Firefox ends up being successful, then I'm all for it, since I think that outcome is far preferable to the alternative of Microsoft domination.

Re:I call troll

[Bogtha]

Citing Socrates' thoughts on truth in a discussion about marketing and PR is absurd.

Why? I was drawing a distinction between knowledge and coincidental belief. If you haven't thought about such issues, they can easily be confused. Socrates is a good place to start dealing with that confusion. Where is the harm in mentioning that?

Clearly if you believe that strict honesty is a moral absolute, then you must inherently oppose any and all marketing efforts for any and all products.

You are making an assumption that is not true. You are assuming that all marketing is inherently dishonest. That is not the case. Firefox have plenty of marketing options without resorting to dishonesty.

If Mozilla can convince people that Firefox is dominating, and therefore Firefox ends up being successful,

Firstly, Firefox is already successful as far as I'm concerned. You're going to have to define "success".

Secondly, that's a non-sequitur. Firefox's success is dependent upon convincing people that it is dominating? Since when?

...then I'm all for it, since I think that outcome is far preferable to the alternative of Microsoft domination.

That's a false dichotomy. Why must there be only two options - dishonesty and Microsoft domaination? You don't think people can compete with Microsoft unless they are dishonest? Why?

Re:I call troll

[jab3]

Reading Socrates' thoughts on justified true belief might give you some perspective on this.

Before you quote Socractes and JTB, read Gettier's response to it. Give you some persepective on the problems of JTB and epistemology.

resort to using third-class promotional tactics?

[lordkuri]

YES! In case you haven't noticed, advertising in this day and age is mostly pandering to the lowest common denominator. The vast majority of people *love* to see "big numbers" because "well, if everyone else is doing it, I should do it too". Microsoft themselves have used the exact same tactics, as well as almost every other company on the planet at some point or another.

Advertising is a game that has to be played, and it must be played in a fashion to make it work. Personally, I think it's somewhat sad that they have to resort to outlandish claims, but that's what works... it speaks more for the state of our society than anything else.

This story is pointless

[Manuscript Replica]

Wow, fanboys of a technology of some kind are using misleading figures and unnecessarily degrading their competition? No way. That never happens.

That clause doesn't parse

[AEton]

but does the community need to resort to using third-class promotional tactics with total downloads number?

If I could figure out what that meant I might have a witty retort.

Let the software speak for itself

[fak3r]

I always thought the NYTimes Ad thing was a bit silly, I mean come on, this is software; it should lead by example and be used by people in the know. People learn about new software from reviews and co-workers/friends. Mozilla is not Microsoft, they shouldn't spend money in an attempt to gain marketshare. This is not a case for old school marketing, this is a new way of thinking; let the software speak for itself.

There is no bad publicity.

[Chas]

Just like this guy and his snarky opinions are now getting his site lots of traffic.

Third Class Promotional Tactics??

[Foofoobar]

does the community need to resort to using third-class promotional tactics with total downloads number?

*points at Microsoft*
They started it FIRST!!

Would you prefer Firefox and Mozilla to pay for researchers to put out highly slanted reports instead? Which class would that be? First? Second? If you ask me, that's without class.

... assuming 9 out of 10 downoads are uninstalled.

[guyfromindia]

The author seems to have a good argument...
But, even if 1/10th of 150 Million downloads are by individuals - who continue to use Firefox after downloading - 15,000,000 is still a significant number, given that most OEMs are still putting IE as the default browser in new PCs...
If all OEMs include Firefox in their new PCs and ask the user to configure which browser they would like to use (on first startup), I am sure most of them who know about Firefox will choose it..
That said, I would say that promoting Firefox by saying that "Firefox Downloads Exceed 150 Million" is still valid... at least it is for the betterment of the whole Internet ;)

My browser can beat up your browser!

[ENOENT]

Oh yeah, well, you're ugly!

how is this different?

[gEvil (beta)]

How is this any different from Microsoft claiming to have X billion MSN searches a month when their browser redirects any typo or bad url as an MSN search query? I agree that the reporting of X million downloads isn't particularly meaningful, but when the competition sits there throwing around meaningless numbers, one of the only choices is to join in and play the same game...

We all Know...

[xoip]

Downloads are just a rough approximation of support.
The fact that some users may Download multiple times while others will re-use the same copy over and over or bundle it on a CD for distribution.
That said, there is nothing wrong with letting people know that Firefox is a viable alternative to IE, and using the download number is the only tool at hand to guage the size of the user community.

Computer Science

[prgrmr]

There was a time when working with computers was referred to as a Science. This was completely justifiable in that almost every aspect of working with computers can be quantified. And as Heinlein observed, that which can be quantified is science, and that which cannot is opinion.

While the article's author does, in fact, have a point about the statistical validity of the Firefox download count, he doesn't approach the subject from that perspective, and instead is ultimately guilty of the same thing he is accusing the Firefox community of: being completely immature.

the answer is clearly "YES"

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

"It's a fact that Internet Explorer is inferior to Firefox..."

I'll only believe that IE is inferior to Firefox for end user applications if lots and lots of end users agree.

"...does the community need to resort to using third-class promotional tactics with total downloads number?"

Well, if 150 million end users agree IE is inferior to Firefox for end user applications, then I would tend to agree with them, especially given the extra download Firefox users must perform to install Firefox on their desktop.

So...the answer would appear to be "Yes, Firefox is doing the correct thing by posting usage and adoption numbers." Can I help you with anything else today?

Troll!

[GarfBond]

The counter ignores you if you are using a firefox UA.
It also doesn't include downloads from mirrors or updates pushed out through the browser updater.

If anything, this means that the counter is underreporting. Also that this article is mostly nullified.

Also, isn't this the 2nd link to cooltechzone in as many articles? I think someone's trolling for hits.

Cool Tech Zone

[wackysootroom]

Come on. "Cool Tech Zone"? Are we really that hard up for news that we have to go dipping into the bottom of the garbage pail of tech websites to find a troll to post on the front of slashdot. All I can say is at least it's not a blog.

Ordinary users don't know what web standards are

[NekoXP]

Of course they need to resort to "immature" tactics like reporting download totals and making fun of IE.

Any non-geek user doesn't understand what is wrong with IE. You can't verbally demonstrate what is wrong with it. HTML standards compliance, full CSS2 support, Javascript, DOM1, wah wah wa. It goes over their heads.

You could show them the difference but CNN and MSN and Slashdot and so on all work in IE just fine, with no huge glitches or problems, no great security issues (I tend not to click things at random).

What I find more immature is site designers who make sites which ONLY work in Gecko (and not Opera and specially not IE!) and then complain that the other browsers are not standards compliant. These site designers were the first to blast websites that were "best viewed in IE" or designed using Microsoft JS extensions (document.all[]) and so on.

Not so much the development team or Mozilla marketing fanboys but basically a pretentious, self-righteous, deluded few.

Poor argument.

[kryptx]

I don't like the Firefox community either; I think they give their browser too much credit. But this "article" is just a waste of time.

See this page for a more thorough list of inaccuracies that are continually perpetuated by the Firefox community.

Since When...

[eno2001]

...is reporting stats immature or "fanboy" behavior. There are plenty of sites that report stats ad nauseum for things that other people care little about. Would you call those sorts of sites immature or "fanboy" sites? I personally think the submitter has an axe to grind... Too bad you can't mod the people who get their articles submitted when it's something as stupid as the main story here.

why should you report numbers?

[prof187]

simple: to let people who are considering supporting firefox know that it is worth their time. the only way people are going to move away from IE-only renderable sites is if it merits their time to ensure cross-compatibility. by letting them know how many people are downloading it, it helps show them that there is a install base worthy of attention

A fact????

[hawkmoon77]

You know how people use the word "literally" when they mean "figuratively?" Apparently, it is also now okay to use the word, "fact" to mean "opinion."

Re:Affectionate?

[spellraiser]

BZZT!

You are obviously not empowered to actualize your full reading comprehensive potential.

It's off to the indoctrinative camps with you!

Worse than a troll.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's just blatantly hypocritical. If I may summarize the article:

"OMG, dudez! we all no dat frefox is TEH BOMBBBB!!!! and like IE is SUX0RS! (i mean HARD!) but wecan be k00l n not TOTALY thro it n thr bitchass facez!! NOT! LOLOLOLOL!!! serously u guyz lez be chillllll cuz we gosta reprezet teh awsums1!! ANDALL U IE BIACHES KAN SUK MY DIK!!"

Yup. That's a pretty accurate paraphrase.

Marketing-- okay. Crashing-- no!

[helix_r]

Best to leave marketing to the professionals. Geeks don't understand it and never will. If a full page ad in the NYTimes is what they need, then by all means, bless them.

However, the thing that will kill firefox more effectively than anything else is if it loses its repuation as a stable and quick browser. The more frequent crashes since 1.0.7 have started a little buzz of criticism. The most important thing mozilla should do NOW is to address the instability problems quickly and completely.

Put the geeks to work on that. Put the biz-dev-marketing people to work on NYTimes.

The only relevant measure

[trifish]

The only relevant measurement that matters is the percentage of visitors using Firefox at big sites like google.com. Someone should ask Google to reveal their stats about browser usage among their visitors. Number of downloads is indeed misleading (I downloaded Firefox but don't use it).

Re:The only relevant measure

[BCW2]

At work (white box store) we install Firefox on most computers. We only download it on our own when a new version is released. We do installs from a ripped CD so I can tell you that the download number is several hundred short of the installed number. It's faster than downloading each time. I think the google numbers would be more accurate than downloads.

Re:I probably screw up the average too

[ADRA]

Inversely, I used to sysadmin a network where I installed Firefox onto a few dozen PC's but from only one download.

The numbers are obviously unreliable, but they do lead to trends. Maybe a 'better' number would be a % delta over month-month or quarter-quarter. Then again, you're assuming that people would understand what that means. Pure raw numbers at least cater to the lowest common denominator in that the vast majority of people know that 150M is a lot.

Slashdot Quality

[WankersRevenge]

I've been reading Slashdot for six years or so, and it seems to me, the quality of stories have really taken a nose dive. Or better put, stories written to incite the community have been getting greater air time. I read, write, and sometimes moderate, but stories like this makes me scratch my head and wonder why I even visit this site anymore.

So who's the fanboy?

[cocoamix]

It's a fact that Internet Explorer is inferior to Firefox with its extensive collection of extensions and ability to support qualified web standards,

Why must he denigrate IE so? He sounds like such a fanboy.

Re:Ordinary users don't know what web standards ar

[Kjella]

What I find more immature is site designers who make sites which ONLY work in Gecko (and not Opera and specially not IE!) and then complain that the other browsers are not standards compliant.

Show me a standards-compliant page that renders differently in Opera. I do have *one* example where they render differently, where I think Opera is the one being standards-compliant. In my experience they're almost pixel-perfect twins though. As for IE... you don't even have to *try* to make that render crazy.

Re:Ordinary users don't know what web standards ar

[orthogonal]

Any non-geek user doesn't understand what is wrong with IE. You can't verbally demonstrate what is wrong with it.

Actually, I've found you can verbalize what's wrong with IE quite easily:

If you continue to use IE, you will get viruses and Trojans

works pretty effectively.

Also effective:

If you switch to Firefox and install a few simple extensions, you won't see advertisements.

And the closer:

And if you really need to view a page in IE (and you usually won't), there's another extension that will let you do that.

Sloppy statistics is the tool of the devil

[hey!]

incarnate of course in the persons of practicioners of marketing They indeed perform many useful and construction functions, but informing the public in the truest sense of the word is not one of them.

Unfortunately, since the devil makes such free use of out contextless "statistics", the side of the angels cannot forbear to use them as well. In most cases I detest this kind of reasoning, but since we're talking about counteracting one incomplete truth which functions as a lie with an equal and opposite incomplete truth, I'm inclined to give it a pass. A public holding two partial truths is more informed than a public holding only one; a public that is unsure of anything is better informed than a public that is sure of something that is untrue.

Re:resort to using third-class promotional tactics

[eepok]

I completely agree. But also...

Am I the only one that sees that pandering to the lowest common denominator for a GOOD product actually benefits everyone? If less people use Internet Explorer (because nobody updates anyway) then less people can have their lives/businesses interupted by malware. Thus, the big numbers convincing simple people for the sake of good, is GOOD.

It's like health. Stay healthy, and you will live longer and more comfortabley. Not many people are healthy for the sake of their own health. But, tell guys that girls will have sex with them because they look healthy and -WHAM!- guys are hitting the gym.

Soylent Green

[KarateExplosions]

The burgers are people!

And with 175 Billion served, they have done us a wonderful population-control service.

Re:Soylent Green

[ShieldW0lf]

Ridiculous. I'll have you know people are actually very tasty and nutritious when prepared properly. Whereas MacDonalds....

Re:resort to using third-class promotional tactics

[crazyjimmy]

How is announcing the # of downloads different than McDonalds bragging about the number of burgers served? Yes, if we think about it, we can fairly say that not every download was unique, but we can also say that not every McDonalds burger that was sold was sold to a single person. We don't get mad at McDonalds for that, though (we get mad cause those "Billions of Burgers" have all been crappy :P).

That being said, 150 million downloads is a significant number. First off, it's big. I mean really really big. But Secondly, it's a sign that people are still using Firefox. For every time that the same person downloads another copy of firefox, that person is quietly saying that Firefox works for them. That's pretty significant.

All that being said, saying the "Firefox Community, Sickly Out of Control" in this regard is over-hype, and actually worse than bragging about a downloads number. It's creating a major false-impression. I thought the title meant that the FireFox community was fracturing and that 2.0 was going to be seriously delayed or some such. I thought that they were turning into a porn-download-machine (more than it already is, being able to connect to the internet :P), or taking money from microsoft to sabotage their own product. I thought they were hatching a scheme to turn everyone's computers into nodes for the ultimate evil planet-controlling network, and demanding that the world leaders give them $$$$$ or we'll all be blown straight to hell. Something.

Saying "yay, yay, 150+ million downloads. Microsoft sucks. we rock. Go us." is not sickly out of control. Maybe immature...maybe.

--Jimmy

Re:This is not the website you are looking for

[tanguyr]

Here here.

Where? Where?

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mhear.html/

Re:Ordinary users don't know what web standards ar

[Lawmune]

Not so much the development team or Mozilla marketing fanboys but basically a pretentious, self-righteous, deluded few.

When browsing the web, I see "best viewed with Firefox" buttons quite frequently. Every once in awhile, I'll even run into a site that uses a browser detection script that either tells me to switch browsers (I currently use Opera) or deliberately prevents me from reading the content. Luckily, I can mask my browser, but it's still annoying and having to do that prevents accurate browser stats from being collected.

The official (and correct, IMO) stance of the Mozilla Foundation is that they do not support "best viewed with Firefox" buttons. Unfortunately, overenthusiastic fans need to be reminded of this far too often, even on spreadfirefox.com (which I generally think is a good site)

I've written about the "best viewed with" phenomenon here, with a comparative look (using Google) at how many people create sites that are "best viewed with Firefox" versus people who make sites that are "best viewed with Opera".

Misleading?

[bunratty]

Do you really think that isn't misleading? That it doesn't make the average person think that there are 100 million users?

How is that misleading? Firefox does have about 100 million users. There are about 1 billion Internet users, with about 10% of them using Firefox.

Recent Firefox Releases *crash* all the time

[ClarkEvans]

The recent releases of Firefox (1.5 and up) crash all the time for myself and my clients. I've got a custom XUL app running on Firefox and I'm seriously beginning to regret this decision. I would have been better off using plain-old DHTML and supporting Safari (for OS/X people), and perhaps Opera (for the Windows people).

The crashes are simply out-of-control.

Media: Sickly out of control

[iabervon]

The Firefox community says plenty of stuff beyond reporting the number of downloads. The Times ad had distinct names of individuals. The Firefox page reports a bunch of important features. However, the media keeps picking up the download count. You can't really blame Mozilla for the press's focus on meaningless statistics.

"Sickly Out of Control?"

[boutell]

That's not even an overstatement; it's the headline of some completely different story. "Mozilla Community: Prone to Exaggeration" maybe. But not even half as much as the troll who wrote this article.