Mozilla Reponds - We Call the Shots, Not Google.

An anonymous reader writes "Recent articles in the New York Times and at CNET have highlighted the growing concern that Google holds significant power and influence over Firefox's development. In an interview published today, Mozilla's technology strategist Mike Shaver did his best to proclaim Mozilla's independence. Yes, Google pays Mozilla $56 million per year, Google is the default search engine, and supplier of many of the browser's features (anti-phishing, anti-malware, incorrect URL resolution). Shaver insists that in spite of these ties, Mozilla still calls the shots over Firefox's development."

Comments

Do they?

[larry bagina]

The mozilla foundation didn't want firefox in the first place. But I guess since firefox has gotten bigger, slower, and more bloated over time, mozilla is calling the shots. too bad.

Re:Do they?

[Threni]

> The mozilla foundation didn't want firefox in the first place. But I guess since firefox has gotten bigger, slower, and more bloated over time...

I didn't want, initially, to use shitty non-standards compliant (ie Netscape) software, but it's got more compliant over time. Presumably Google are in favour of standards as Google users won't only be using Firefox, so frankly Mozilla can either 1) do what Google want, or 2) risk Google going alone with their own browser based on Firefox code.

Re:Do they?

[Anonymous Coward]

The mozilla foundation didn't want firefox in the first place. But I guess since firefox has gotten bigger, slower, and more bloated over time, mozilla is calling the shots. too bad. Firefox is already slower and more bloated than Mozilla ever was and only has a fraction of the functionality. Give Seamonkey a try. It feels blazing fast by comparison to Bloatfox. Damn I wish there was a good, Open Source, cross platform browser based on WebKit.

Clean, fast code FTW!

Re:Do they?

[McDutchie]

Damn I wish there was a good, Open Source, cross platform browser based on WebKit.

Presto!

Re:Do they?

[Cecil]

From the download instructions:

Konqueror is part of KDE's "kdebase" package. The HTML rendering engine khtml is together with all other needed KDE libraries contained in KDE's "kdelibs" package.

To install Konqueror please refer to the pages on how to install KDE.

That's not cross-platform.

Re:Do they?

[Anonymous Coward]

From the download instructions:

Konqueror is part of KDE's "kdebase" package. The HTML rendering engine khtml is together with all other needed KDE libraries contained in KDE's "kdelibs" package.

To install Konqueror please refer to the pages on how to install KDE.

That's not cross-platform. Konqueror is somewhat cross platform as it will work on any Unix-like OS, including OS X (but only under X11 and X11 on OS X is awful, imho). Suposedly, when KDE4 is released native OS X and Windows versions are going to be available. Still, that would be rather heavy just to get a web browser, and khtml differs (at least in 3.5.x) from WebKit. Try the Safari in Leopard. It's awesome, it even does :hover on just about everything and does css opacity well. Gecko's done that for a while, new versions of Opera do that, and now WebKit does it, but khtml still does not. KHTML also has issues with "overflow: auto" and "<object>" tags, which Gecko, Opera, and WebKit do not.

Re:Do they?

[WinterSolstice]

Dude, that's like saying Kate (my all-time fav Unix editor) is cross-platform.

Just because it runs on multiple chipsets doesn't mean it's compatible with multiple OS platforms.

Sure - you can run it anywhere that X11 runs... but that requires quite a lot of 'other' stuff :)

Re:Do they?

[McDutchie]

KDE is cross-platform, therefore Konqueror is too.

Re:Do they?

[ozmanjusri]

Firefox is already slower and more bloated than Mozilla ever was

The first Firefox ever released, version 0.8, was a very light 6MB download. I remember all the excitement about this "fast, lean new browser" .

Today, after five years of continuous bloat, Firefox 2.0.0.9 requires a bandwidth-busting 6MB download before you can install it to your groaning hard drive.

Cut the astroturf already, ok?

Re:Do they?

[eosp]

So .8 was a 6 MB download, and now 2.0.0.9 is a 6 MB download. That what you're saying? Or did you mean that .8 was after decompression and 2.0.0.9 is before?

Re:Do they?

[quanticle]

Konqueror is somewhat cross platform as it will work on any Unix-like OS,

Depends on your definition of "platform". If you consider each *nix a platform by itself, then yes, Konqueror is cross-platform. However, if you consider all POSIX compliant operating systems together as a platform, then KDE is not cross platform.

Re:Do they?

[totally bogus dude]

I'd say the former. The GP is just pointing out that when Firefox was released, it was considered "small" by web browser standards, at "only" 8 megs. Now, it's still actually only 8 megs, but people call it "bloated".

Read into that whatever you want.

Re:Do they?

[Ilgaz]

> The mozilla foundation didn't want firefox in the first place. But I guess since firefox has gotten bigger, slower, and more bloated over time...

I didn't want, initially, to use shitty non-standards compliant (ie Netscape) software, but it's got more compliant over time. Presumably Google are in favour of standards as Google users won't only be using Firefox, so frankly Mozilla can either 1) do what Google want, or 2) risk Google going alone with their own browser based on Firefox code. Netscape 4 was being coded while there were no official standards around and everyone was proposing their own standards to become de facto standard. The "standards" you seem to care are result of power fight between the browsers and their propositions. MS didn't get into W3C board because they are in love with standards.

For Google, standards are either IE or Firefox. Try going to docs.google.com with a non Firefox browser such as Opera which is known for their strict conformance of standards since the start.

Until every single page, CSS passes W3C validators, nobody can claim Google is standards compliant. I would be using and supporting Firefox if they weren't that close to Google and they actually cared about my platform of choice (OS X). With their version 3, they seem to care a bit but Google and shadowy agreements still remain.

I don't want a Fortune 500 giant to watch every single URL I go with excuse of "Phishing protection" for my favor.

I was like that too

[dedazo]

I used to say the same thing when I was a teenager and generally feeling rebellious. Unfortunately my dad had all the money at the time, so for anything that had to do with money he ended up calling the shots.

I'm not saying this is bad, and frankly I don't buy the "OMG Google will subvert Firefox" or whatever the conspiracy theory du jour is, but when 99% (or close to that) of your income comes from a single place, "I call the shots" comes across a little weak. He might be right in his claim that Mozilla is independent with or without Google's $56 million, but without the $56M Mozilla is a very different company, probably one that cannot support 120 million users or pay developers or CEOs.

When it comes to money, it's always worse to have it and then lose it than to never have it to begin with.

Re:I was like that too

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I'm thinking that maybe having someone else control Firefox would be a good thing. I used to really love it but the little bugs here and there are starting to bother me. The Mac version becomes unusable after a couple days and I have to restart it so it will render pages at least semi-properly again. So I've started switching to other programs on the Mac, and I'll probably begin switching my program on Windows too.

Re:I was like that too

[toleraen]

Could that money come from another source though? Would Yahoo payout like Google does if they switched the default search engines, homepage, etc to yahoo's servers? Sure the cash is really flowing in, but it seems like other there would be other companies that would pay for that right. Maybe not as much as Google, but they'd pay something at least.

Re:I was like that too

[elrous0]

No company gives another $56 million and still lets them "call all the shots."

Re:I was like that too

[griffjon]

This is all well and good; but look at Flock, which is Firefox + lots of web 2.0 integration, and very Yahoo-centric. No matter how much moolah Google pours into the Mozilla foundation, at the end of the day, it's still providing crunchy, wholesome GPL'ed software. If Google suddenly turns evil; the code still belongs to the community and if Mozilla won't cut the relationship, someone can fork a version out and cut out the Google-centric features.

A good bit of caution is wise, but let's not look a $56 million/year gift to the OSS community in the mouth overmuch.

Re:I was like that too

[dedazo]

Perhaps Mozilla could give you the option to set the default search engine when you install it. Then Google would pay for Google installations, Yahoo for theirs, Microsoft for theirs, etc. Users win, the search engine company wins, Mozilla wins. More importantly, Mozilla becomes more independent.

And then maybe Microsoft could rent a clue about that. I for one would love to see Google pay Microsoft for the benefit of being the default search engine in Internet Explorer. People who pick Google as a SE mean no revenue to Microsoft in that sense, anyway. And that would also mean more choice for IE users.

Re:I was like that too

[Scaba]

Unless they're married.

Re:I was like that too

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

He might be right in his claim that Mozilla is independent with or without Google's $56 million, but without the $56M Mozilla is a very different company, probably one that cannot support 120 million users or pay developers or CEOs.

Well, a lot of the contributors to Firefox are already paid by someone else, but that aside I bet both Microsoft and Yahoo would happily bid for the default search position and a whole lot of companies/portals would bid on being the default home page. Aside from that source of income, a lot of companies have a vested interest in there being a full-featured Web browser not controlled by Microsoft. I bet Sun, Adobe, and IBM would all provide either funding or developers if the need arose.

My final point is, Firefox is not necessary. Webkit and Opera are both available to pick up the slack and keep up the competition. I just don't see Google's sponsorship as being a significant risk.

Re:I was like that too

[dvice_null]

> if Mozilla won't cut the relationship, someone can fork a version

We already have quite a lot of forks: Flock, GNU IceWeasel, Portable Edition, Netscape 9, Swiftfox, Swiftweasel, Miro, Songbird, XeroBank

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_IceWeasel

Re:I was like that too

[asa]

> Could that money come from another source though? Would
> Yahoo payout like Google does if they switched the default
> search engines, homepage, etc to yahoo's servers?

We already do have a financial relationship with Yahoo and they pay Mozilla for the traffic Firefox sends them. It's just not as much because they're used by fewer Firefox users (both because they're not default, and because users prefer Google.)

> Sure the cash is really flowing in, but it seems like
> other there would be other companies that would pay for
> that right. Maybe not as much as Google, but they'd pay
> something at least.

Any company, including Microsoft, that depends on traffic would pay to have 130 million users visiting their services regularly. Google is the best right now so we chose them as the default. Yahoo is still a favorite of some people, and so it's included in Firefox as an alternative. Some countries have other popular search services and we include those -- even defaulting to them in some cases, when it makes sense for the users.

This isn't about money, really. Mozilla could get as much or more money by selling off search or other services to the highest bidder but that's not how we operate. Google is the default because it's the best. If some other search overtakes Google, then that will probably soon be the default.

- A

Re:I was like that too

[Constantine XVI]

Miro and Songbird aren't browsers, and XeroBank has a certain purpose (secure portable web browsing)

Re:I was like that too

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. It is similar to thinking that the United Nations is an autonomous body when it's major funding comes from the United States. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations#Financing

Re:I was like that too

[asa]

Firefox is available under a tri-license. You can accept the Mozilla code under any of the MPL, the GPL, or the LGPL, depending on what best suits your needs. Mozilla only accepts contributions that have all three licenses to preserve our ability to continue offering it all under any of those three license terms.

- A

Re:I was like that too

[RonnyJ]

How about if Firefox randomly chose one of the supplied search engines as the default, but allowed people to change this in the installer? That way, they could get their income from more sources, but people could actively choose their search engine if they wanted (without having to delve into the settings).

I realise that's not going to happen, and some people may say that Google should be default on the basis that it's considered the best search engine (although if another smaller engine surpassed Google in result quality, would Mozilla really drop Google as the default and sacrifice their revenue? I think not).

Re:I was like that too

[AvitarX]

Did you follow the link on the licenses?

Source license:

Core Mozilla project source code is licensed under a disjunctive tri-license giving you the choice of one of the three following sets of free software/open source licensing terms:

        * Mozilla Public License, version 1.1 or later
        * GNU General Public License, version 2.0 or later
        * GNU Lesser General Public License, version 2.1 or later http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/
(Emphasis mine)
Binary license:

Version 2.0

A SOURCE CODE VERSION OF CERTAIN FIREFOX BROWSER FUNCTIONALITY THAT YOU MAY USE, MODIFY AND DISTRIBUTE IS AVAILABLE TO YOU FREE-OF-CHARGE FROM WWW.MOZILLA.ORG UNDER THE MOZILLA PUBLIC LICENSE and other open source software licenses. http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/legal/eula/firefox2-en.html

Re:I was like that too

[Anonymous Coward]

But would we want them to? I suspect most Firefox users are perfectly happy to have Google as the default everything - I know I am. I certainly wouldn't like having Yahoo as my search engine, so making it the default would just give me extra work to change it all.

Re:I was like that too

[toleraen]

Mozilla could get as much or more money by selling off search or other services to the highest bidder but that's not how we operate. Google is the default because it's the best. I think that pretty much puts this entire discussion to rest. Thanks for the response!

Re:I was like that too

[vertinox]

I'm not saying this is bad, and frankly I don't buy the "OMG Google will subvert Firefox" or whatever the conspiracy theory du jour is, but when 99% (or close to that) of your income comes from a single place, "I call the shots" comes across a little weak.

Were you registered as a non-profit organization like Mozilla? If so, it would be illegal for your dad to tell you what to do with the money he gave you. That said he just got the right to use the money he gave you as a big tax write off.

Sure Google could threaten to not donate, but according to fed tax laws, donations aren't like buying stock when it comes to non-profit. That was the whole point of why Mozilla was founded under a non-profit charter.

Re:I was like that too

[notthe9]

They rushed on that! I believe Firefox is licenced under the MPL, GPL, and LGPL.

Re:I was like that too

[mrdarreng]

Google is the default because it's the best. How do you define best? How do you make it a non-subjective? Do you determine they're best because they're the most preferred by users?

Re:I was like that too

[rtb61]

Oddly enough when it comes to business relationships between google and yahoo, I have come across sites with google adwords advertised in yahoo supplied advertising. So google obviously considers it worth while to pay yahoo to provide advertising services.

When it comes to default search in Firefox, you can't really say google is the default as changing that is simply a matter of clicking the pull down to provide immediate access to a range of other search engines, and the last one used becomes the default on next use, so defaults really also includes wikipedia etc (I can't remember the others that turn up on an initial install).

So while it would be sensible for M$ to pay Firefox for default listing, they will not, simply because their management style reflects childish immaturity and tantrums, the billy goat is as the billy goat does. For Ballmer making sensible business decisions takes second place to drunken rants and ego driven rages.

So while google as the main customer of the .com as the main customer they have no greater input into the .org, and it really wont be all that far off until a lot of the other old world media companies realize the benefit of branding their own version of the Mozilla browser.

Re:I was like that too

[aplusjimages]

Well the article forgot this quote from Mozilla's CEO "Did I say that right, Larry?"

Re:I was like that too

[asa]

>Sure Google could threaten to not donate,

Once again, I think this really hits at the heart of what's confused here. Google isn't donating/giving money to Mozilla. Google is paying for search traffic that Firefox generates. Yahoo is doing the same thing. Google is the bulk of the traffic and so the bulk of the revenue. If Google was just donating cash to Mozilla in the tens of millions, I'd understand that people might be suspicious about the "why" but the why here is obvious -- for lots of traffic. 130 million Firefox users constitutes a lot of traffic. Firefox is about 20% of the Web and probably are serious search users. Any search company would happily pay for a piece of that traffic.

Again, Google is not donating. Google is not giving. This isn't some charitable action on their behalf. They're paying for search traffic. They're paying for the eyeballs of 130 million Firefox users. There is no secret arrangement here or some unknown agenda. Google wants traffic. Firefox is giving them traffic. Google is paying Mozilla. The same is true for other search services included in Firefox and we're turning away a lot of offers of lots of money to add more to the browser because we want it to "just work" for users and that's more important than additional sources of revenue.

- A

Re:I was like that too

[BootNinja]

Your suggestion defeats the entire point of google paying for default placement. The purpose of paying to be default search is to get people who ordinarily would use another search engine to use Google instead. If you really want to use Yahoo! instead of Google, then you will change the search bar, but most people will leave it set to Google, thus Google gets x more people looking at their ads. If you take away that automatic default, you are taking away the product that Google is paying for.

Re:I was like that too

[SavedLinuXgeeK]

Don't you mean,

Thanks for reponding . Its the Mozilla way...

Re:I was like that too

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

Perhaps Mozilla could give you the option to set the default search engine when you install it.

Assuming the Windows of Firefox:

• you can use the Client Customization Kit to build your own custom Firefox installer that ships with your preferred settings;
• you can edit chrome\en-GB.jar\locale\browser-region\region.properties and replace "Google" with "Yahoo.co.uk" in the "browser.search.defaultenginename" line (localize as necessary);
• you can delete searchplugins\google.xml, and Firefox will default to the next-highest-priority search engine for your locale (probably Yahoo); and finally
• you can just click on the search bar and select which search engine you want.

You're looking for fault in something that works perfectly fine.

Re:I was like that too

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

Oh, and I forgot the obvious one: Firefox is free software. You can just fork it if none of the above options are good enough for you.

Re:I was like that too

[Nazlfrag]

I figured they were getting paid by them all (well perhaps not Creative Commons, but surely with eBay and Amazon), just with Google default they provide the lions share of revenue.

Re:I was like that too

[jalefkowit]

How do you define best? How do you make it a non-subjective? Do you determine they're best because they're the most preferred by users?

People forget where Firefox came from. It was not focus grouped (or even planned, really) by Mozilla. At the time, Mozilla was still almost exclusively funded by AOL, and their primary focus was the Mozilla Suite - a browser/email client/HTML editor/IRC client monolith that had lots of promising features, but was too complex and geek oriented to catch on with the general public.

Firefox exists because in 2002 Blake Ross (along with Dave Hyatt) got fed up with the code bloat and designed-by-committee UI of the old Suite, and decided to start a skunkworks-style OSS project to create the anti-Suite: a lean, fast, browser-and-nothing-else tool using the core Mozilla code but jettisoning most of the complexity that had arisen in the Suite over time.

Back then it was called "Phoenix" (as in, rising from the ashes of Mozilla). The search bar showed up very early in Phoenix's life: Phoenix 0.2, to be exact, released in October 2002. And when the search bar landed, it used Google as its engine.

Because Phoenix was Ross' and Hyatt's personal project, design decisions in those days basically came down to whatever they thought was best. They chose Google for the search engine because in 2002 Google was waaaaaay ahead of the competition in search. Heck, back in those days Yahoo licensed Google Search rather than rolling their own!

This was literally years before Google offered Mozilla a red cent for search traffic. In 2002 Google was still 2 years away from going public and had nothing like the cash mountain it has today. They certainly weren't running around throwing tens of millions at browser programmers' side projects.

In other words: Ross and Hyatt chose Google because at the time the decision was a no brainer. Every other search engine was so much worse than Google at returning relevant results that choosing any of them would have been putting the user's needs second, which was contrary to the whole point of Phoenix/Firefox.

Of course, today the quality of competing engines has mostly caught up, so if they were making the decision today maybe they'd have chosen differently, who knows. But it's a mistake to project the conditions of the world today back upon decisions made five years ago. The tech landscape was very different then.

Re:I was like that too

[Anonymous Coward]

> This isn't about money, really.

Ahah. Sorry, don't believe it. That was the case at the beginning of Firefox (it was not about the money, just an ego trip over Mozilla). But those days, it definitely seems to be about the money, whether it pleases you to admit it or not...

Re:I was like that too

[Anonymous Coward]

what!! there are still IE users??

Re:I was like that too

[DanJ_UK]

Perhaps Mozilla could give you the option to set the default search engine when you install it. Then Google would pay for Google installations, Yahoo for theirs, Microsoft for theirs, etc. Users win, the search engine company wins, Mozilla wins. More importantly, Mozilla becomes more independent. And then maybe Microsoft could rent a clue about that. I for one would love to see Google pay Microsoft for the benefit of being the default search engine in Internet Explorer. People who pick Google as a SE mean no revenue to Microsoft in that sense, anyway. And that would also mean more choice for IE users.
To be fair, having google as the default search provider in IE still wouldn't make me use it.

Re:I was like that too

[sulfur]

The purpose of paying to be default search is to get people who ordinarily would use another search engine to use Google instead. While I agree with your comment, this statement is not true. Those who would willingly use another search engine (i.e. they know that it works better for them) would most likely change default search provider. However, those who are OK with the default (Joe Average) will use Google, and that's what they are paying for.

It so easy to change default search engine (you don't even need to go to Options for that), that those who are at least slightly interested in changing it will do so.

Re:I was like that too

[BootNinja]

while what you say is true, the people I was specifically referring to were the ones who currently use another search engine because it's the default on what they use. when they switch to FF, then they will continue to use the default, which is now google.

You are correct that anyone who wants to can easily change their default and that Google gains no converts except among the lazy.

Re:I was like that too

[Anonymous Coward]

"Google is the default because it's the best. If some other search overtakes Google, then that will probably soon be the default."

Sorry, but that is utter BULLSHIT.
You seriously underestimate the intelligence of the readers to even post such clear bullshit.
Hell, Google pays your bills and provides you with most of your programmers. You really expect us to believe that Mozilla, whose CEO makes 500 million dollars per year, the money of which comes from Google, and Google devs are going to alter the default search engine under any circumstances? Give us a fucking break.

When Google says "Jump", you say "How high?"
When Google coughs, you guys catch a cold.

Re:I was like that too

[I'm Don Giovanni]

While I agree with the thrust of your argument, you misread or misheard the salary of Mozilla's CEO. It's 500 thousand, not 500 million. ;)
Google casts a shadow as Firefox plans for the future

"According to Mozilla's 2006 financial records, which were recently released, the foundation had $70 million in assets, largely invested in mutual funds, and last year collected $66 million in revenue. Eighty-five percent came from a single source - Google. But, despite a pledge to use Firefox revenue to support new open-source projects, the foundation gave away less than $100,000 in grants, according to the audited statement, or $287,000, according to Mozilla, in 2006. In the same year, it paid its chief executive, Mitchell Baker, more than $500,000 in salary and benefits."

Re:I was like that too

[JavaRob]

When it comes to default search in Firefox, you can't really say google is the default as changing that is simply a matter of[...] That's what "default" means, though -- what the setting is *before* you change it to your preference. It would be annoying if your settings went back to defaults every time you restarted the browser. There are lots of users who simply don't bother to change the default value -- that's why it's valuable to Google.

So while it would be sensible for M$ to pay Firefox for default listing, they will not, simply because their management style reflects childish immaturity and tantrums Well, no. First, MS didn't get where they are by throwing tantrums and making childish decisions, that's just the occasional side effect of too much power (and, uh, they're already the default search engine on another popular browser). They aren't paying Firefox for the default listing perhaps because the default listing is not up for auction -- Mozilla has to consider how their users would react, not just a temporary higher cash flow. If they found a better deal but it got them a ton of bad press and lost their core userbase, that's a pretty obvious lose.

Re:I was like that too

[SpiritOfGrandeur]

Wow you 110% missed the point of his comment and you got +Informative...

Re:I was like that too

[jalefkowit]

And here's at least one case where Mozilla did not, in fact, call the shots: Bug 364297. (I'd link directly to Bugzilla but they don't accept links from /.)

Quote from the bug:

Per contract requirements with Google, we need to make Google our default home page and search provider in CJKT locales.

For the home page. This may involve simply changing the DNS entries rather than the builds themselves.

For the search engine, we need to select Google as the default.

(Emphasis above is mine. "CJKT locales" is shorthand for China, Japan, Korea, and Taiwan. Prior to this bug being filed these locales' default search provider had been Yahoo.)

Re:I was like that too

[richwklein]

In certain locales Yahoo is already the default. From what I can gather Mozilla and Yahoo have a similar agreement.

Re:I was like that too

[asa]

And prior to that the default was Google. We changed from Google to Yahoo, thinking that it was the right thing for our users in Asia. Then our users in Asia told us, over and over, that they preferred Google so we switched it back. With each of these changes, we established contracts with the search providers and so yes, per contract requirements (that were drawn up before the code change was made,) the code change needed to be made.

- A

Re:I was like that too

[NizzyWizzy4Shizzy]

I think the value is behind being the default search engine. What SE would pay to have their own converts (whether Googlites, Yahooligans, or LiveHeads) to use their technology?

Heh, and you were modded insightful why?

Uh huh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Firefox 2.0.0.8. Search box in the upper right defaults to? Google. Default homepage? Google.

Really, the fact that they're trying to convince people that Google doesn't have influence over the development of Firefox is probably only going to make them look worse. It's perfectly obvious the Mozilla Foundation has been playing lapdog to Google since they started pouring money into it -- to try and state that the Foundation isn't thusly influenced by that influx of cash is absolutely ridiculous.

Re:Uh huh.

[provigilman]

Oh my God, you're right!!! Google is the start page, that must mean that if in the next version of Firefox they want to add something that gives more functionality to the bookmarks, Google gets a say. It must also mean that when they hire a new dev team to work on the browser, Google does the interviews!!!

It could also just be that Google made a deal with them to have the most popular search engine in the world be the default. You can change it, it's not the end of the world, and it doesn't mean that Google has their hands in the day to day running of everything.

I mean, do we really think that Nissan is approving scripts for Heroes and other NBC shows that have the new Rogue in them? No! It's advertising, and I'm sure Nissan pays a hefty to price to ensure that the script for "Claire's dad gives her a new [insert car]" says "[Nissan Rogue]" instead.

Re:Uh huh.

[TheoMurpse]

I mean, do we really think that Nissan is approving scripts for Heroes and other NBC shows that have the new Rogue in them?

No, but I guarantee you that NBC won't let a Nissan spontaneously explode on their show. NBC got sued for showing someone get injured by a garbage disposal last season, and part of the settlement had NBC agreeing to not show the disposal in a negative light again, and that disposal wasn't even a sponsor! In fact, Emerson is a competitor of the owner of NBC, General Electric.

If you buy the DVDs or HDDVDs, you're watching a version of the show censored by a non-sponsor, and you don't think sponsorship also plays a role in the creative process?

Re:Uh huh.

[enoz]

Why is this modded insightful? This article is about Google taking control of Firefox development and has nothing to do with setting the homepage.

Google already appears to have a track record of getting their components embedded into Firefox. Whether this is due to their growing influence or simply because the developers liked the plugins is hard to say.

Don't believe me? For an easy to find example take a look in the 'components' folder in your Firefox installation and you may be surprised how many recent additions are provided by Google.

Re:Uh huh.

[I'm Don Giovanni]

It's clear that Google pays Firefox's bills and Firefox is indeed Google's lapdog. But at least in Firefox you can change the default search engine and also add secondary engines.

That's a lot better than Apple's Safari. Safari search engine is Google, lock, stock, and barrel so you can't even change the default or add secondary search engines. And since Safari is the default browser on OSX, Google is *locked* in as the default engine for OSX itself (and no, you can't say the same for Windows, since its default browser (IE) allows the user to change the default and add secondary engines).

So I'd say that Firefox has more integrity on this matter than Apple. (But not much. Safari at least has its own Apple home page, phishing page, etc, while Firefox uses Google for all of that.)

Re:Uh huh.

[Anonymous Coward]

"It could also just be that Google made a deal with them to have the most popular search engine in the world be the default." -- Your own words, and exactly what the original poster was implying...funny how the people who pretend they're smart don't even proofread their own ramblings, eh?

See, none of your brand of bullshit was suggested by the initial comment. You just put words into someone's mouth in order to make yourself feel/appear superior to your peers (who are Slashdot posters...sad life you've got, isn't it). The fact that it's so obvious just makes the attempt more pathetic, really, but I think you're used to feeling pathetic, aren't you? You're used to feeling weak, it's why you waste your time on Slashdot trying to appear like you're some sort of intellectual or debating genius. You're a nothing, and you'll always be a nothing.

Chew on that thought for a while, go ahead and think up some supposedly-witty retort if it makes you feel better about yourself. I won't be waiting to read it -- I've already wasted enough time on you, and I'm guessing I'm not the only person to ever have thought so.

Re:Uh huh.

[provigilman]

Wow...that was a scathing retort. Overshadowed only by your complete lack of balls in posting as an anonymous coward.

Note: Making a deal for product placement is not the same as "calling the shots". I inserted no words into the parent's mouth. Does Apple control Hollywood? According to his logic, you would think so since they're one of the most consistent users of product placement in movies. Blade Trinity's completely jarring use of Jessica Biel loading MP3's onto her iPod to have music to kill by being an excellent example. Somehow, I doubt Steve Jobs was involved in the casting of the film though...

I would come up with some witty and spite filled rant about you...but I really just don't have the time. Instead, I'll simply use the one you already so generously provided, as it applies just as equally (if not more so) to you.

You just put words into someone's mouth in order to make yourself feel/appear superior to your peers (who are Slashdot posters...sad life you've got, isn't it). The fact that it's so obvious just makes the attempt more pathetic, really, but I think you're used to feeling pathetic, aren't you? You're used to feeling weak, it's why you waste your time on Slashdot trying to appear like you're some sort of intellectual or debating genius. You're a nothing, and you'll always be a nothing.

apologies to Mr. Manilow

[User 956]

Mozilla still calls the shots over Firefox's development.

Not only that, they write the songs that make the whole world sing.

Re:apologies to Mr. Manilow

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, Bruce Johnston wrote that. The big "BM" was just one of the acts that recorded it in 1975.

so who gets the money?

[EllynGeek]

They're still dodging the question of how to spend all those millions. Sure, the devs and people who support Firefox are all happy. But that happiness will evaporate if they don't think the money is being handled fairly. So as both a non-profit and a FOSS project, which are both accountable in different ways, what is going to happen to all that nice fluffy cash?

Re:so who gets the money?

[ThirdPrize]

They could afford to pay for ads that put the FF site at the top of the list whenever anyone types "internet explorer" into google.

Re:so who gets the money?

[recoiledsnake]

Yes the first thing I do after installing Linux is to search for "Internet Explorer" in Google to download and install it. Now because of your brilliant idea, people like me would install Firefox instead.

Re:so who gets the money?

[asa]

We most certainly have said where the money goes. Read the financial disclosure statement. In summary, the bulk of what we spend goes to personnel and infrastructure and what we don't spend goes into savings/investment.

- A

Re:so who gets the money?

[The Slashdolt]

Do you guys get to use the google jet?

Re:so who gets the money?

[EllynGeek]

What financial disclosure statement? You could provide a link. I doubt that personnel and infrastructure come close to making a dent in $74 million, so you're still not answering the question of what the remaining tens of millions are going to be used for. Are volunteer devs going to get paid? Are you going to fund other OSS projects? How do you decide which volunteers get money?

I doubt that the foundation is going to sit on all those funds.

Re:so who gets the money?

[asa]

Google for it. I've already wasted enough time responding to an obvious troll. Hell, just read the previous couple of /. articles and you'll find links.

- A

Re:so who gets the money?

[Lunzo]

asa said "google for it". Obviously a conspiracy. If Google and Mozilla weren't in cahoots asa would have said "search for it with the search engine of your choice".

Re:so who gets the money?

[TooMuchToDo]

I've seen that throughout this thread, you've been very active answering questions. Kudos. I do indeed hope you guys are putting excess cash into a proper investment vehicle (even if it's just a big ol' corporate money market account paying 5%). Then again, I could've just cruised over to the website and read your financial disclosure statement.

Re:so who gets the money?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.mozilla.org/foundation/documents/mf-2006-audited-financial-statement.pdf/

Here are some of the highlights:

For 2006 investment value: $50,842,504

Total Assets: $74,148,710

Royalties Search: $61,501,145

Interest: $2,162,756

Contributions: $92,602

Unrealized gain Investments: $1,791,490

Software Development Expenses: $11,775,516

just so people know their donation is spent well.

Re:so who gets the money?

[recoiledsnake]

I doubt that personnel and infrastructure come close to making a dent in $74 million, so you're still not answering the question of what the remaining tens of millions are going to be used for. Are volunteer devs going to get paid? Are you going to fund other OSS projects? How do you decide which volunteers get money?

From http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=6715

In any case, Mozillas expenses in 2006 were just shy of $20 million at $19.77 million. The bulk of these expenses were for 90 people working full or part-time on Mozilla. Employees were 70 percent of expenses.

Re:so who gets the money?

[Anonymous Coward]

> Software Development Expenses: $11,775,516

Software Development Expenses $11,775,516?

Huh? Eleven millions? You gotta be kidding us. I say again, kidding us! Why does the browser suck so much then? Why are there literally thousands of bugs that have been unfixed for years?

Re:so who gets the money?

[AySz88]

To be honest, I also found it difficult to locate any "financial disclosure statement", because I presumed it was lawyerese and googled for the exact phrase. (The real lawyerese is apparently "Independant Auditors' Report and Consolidated Financial Statements".)

(Can't you just call us stupid rather than malicious? :P )

Re:so who gets the money?

[xhrit]

"Yes the first thing I do after installing Linux is to search for "Internet Explorer" in Google to download and install it. Now because of your brilliant idea, people like me would install Firefox instead."

The sad thing is... it is funny because it is true. I am a web developer. One ov the first applications on my stack is ies4linux.

Re:so who gets the money?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why doesn't "Clear Private Data" actually clear the private data? Otherwise, shouldn't the label for that option be "Clear SOME Private Data"? Google is a huge benefactor of never-expiring cookies. An answer would be appreciated (I bookmark my posts). Thanks. I've always installed FF on machines and let users know it is there as an option.

Re:so who gets the money?

[G00F]

wow, about 147k per person per year . . . . And that is assuming everyone makes the same. How do I get a job there?

Re:so who gets the money?

[Anonymous Coward]

You seem very defensive. So apparently there's about 50 mil in your bank account that you don't want to disclose anything about. Not sure why you're even posting here, since you just get mad and don't post anything helpful.

Re:so who gets the money?

[Scaba]

Maybe you could start by submitting patches to fix outstanding bugs or add new and useful features?

Re:so who gets the money?

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, like i'm going to put my trust in a guy who signs his posts. get real.

Re:so who gets the money?

[BZ]

You do realize that the money an employee costs is more than just salary? Things like health insurance, taxes (the employer half of FICA, say), and so forth add up.

Remove the defaults

[QuantumG]

Grey out the search box until the user chooses the search engine they want to use. Randomly choose the order of the search engines in the drop down box (once). Replace the home page with a selection page, and include a type-in box.

That way Mozilla won't be giving Google any special treatment and when the users choose Google to be the preferred search and home page anyway you can claim that you weren't doing anything wrong in the first place.

Re:Remove the defaults

[asa]

> Grey out the search box until the user chooses the search
> engine they want to use. Randomly choose the order of the
> search engines in the drop down box (once). Replace the
> home page with a selection page, and include a type-in box.

Yeah. Everything should be an option. Sounds like you want SeaMonkey and not Firefox. Firefox ships with a set of defaults that we believe are best for the most users. Right now, and for the last five or six years, Google has been the best possible search for most of our users. Where it isn't, we'll change it (like we did for a year in Japan, China, and Korea with Yahoo as the default.)

You're suggesting we optimize for the minority case and that's a cop-out that all too many software programs opt for. Most users don't want to have to configure their browser before they start using it. They want it to "just work" and that's what we aim to deliver.

> That way Mozilla won't be giving Google any special treatment
> and when the users choose Google to be the preferred search
> and home page anyway you can claim that you weren't doing
> anything wrong in the first place.

That way, we can make all of our users suffer an extra flaming hoop to jump through to satisfy a few people who are already quite capable of switching to whatever services they want. Sounds like a great plan.

- A

Re:Remove the defaults

[Babbster]

You're suggesting we optimize for the minority case and that's a cop-out that all too many software programs opt for. Most users don't want to have to configure their browser before they start using it. They want it to "just work" and that's what we aim to deliver.

I'm glad you do, too. Getting my parents up and running with Firefox was a matter of installing the package, having Firefox take over as the default browser in XP and telling the folks not to click the blue "e" anymore. Since her first week with it, my mom hasn't had a single Firefox-related problem. If she has to install it again on another PC, she knows right where to go and will be up and running in minutes, but if she had to sit down and configure it she would just use IE until I had a chance to set it up - if she told me in the first place. So, thanks for not requiring configuration. :)

oil companies and politicians

[facon12]

Yes they do exactly what they want. Just the same way a politician will make all of their own decisions after getting millions from oil companies and other "pacs" with special interests.

Re:oil companies and politicians

[flaming error]

Mozilla: Don't Forget, I am the Decider.

Re:oil companies and politicians

[iknownuttin]

Yes they do exactly what they want. Just the same way a politician will make all of their own decisions after getting millions from oil companies and other "pacs" with special interests.

Not if they want to stay in office. Then you have bow down to your financier.

Mozilla starts doing what they want, even if it runs against Google's wishes, you can bet the money spigot will be turned off.

Re:oil companies and politicians

[Deanalator]

Remember, google put safari into android, not firefox. Google constantly gives a ton of money away to any organization working towards their vision of a free internet. That doesn't mean that google has "lobbyists" working inside firefox forcing their decisions one way or the other.

One thing to consider

[GroundBounce]

Yes, Mozilla gets a lot of money from Google, and it would be naive to assume that they don't have influence. But, some influence from Google may not necessarily be a bad thing, plus, where would mozilla/firefox be in terms of their competitive position if they were $56M/year poorer? Which is the lesser of evils?

AKA "The Golden Rule"

[Anonymous Coward]

Those with the Gold make the rules. And while we're toying with metaphors, if a pictures is worth a thousand words, how many rules are worth $56,000,000?

Glad that's resolved

[Junior J. Junior III]

OK, let's move on then.

Prove it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Make Yahoo! the default search. I dare you.

Re:Prove it.

[asa]

>Make Yahoo! the default search. I dare you.

We did. And users didn't like it at all. We put Yahoo in for CJKT builds because they had a larger presence in those markets. Users were unhappy.

- A

Why doesn't Firefox delete cookies by default?

[rpp3po]

Try this: Click "Tools" -> "Clear private data..." => Now notice that every removal option is checked but two: "Saved Passwords" and "Cookies".

With all this intimate data which can be collected by tracing cookies sent to your browser, why in the hell doesn't a browser default to delete cookies if you tell it to "clear PRIVATE data"??? Well, maybe because Mozilla's top sponsor is intensively relying on cookies?

I think this says all about who is" calling the shots" at Mozilla. It's cleary NOT the end user's interests.

Re:Why doesn't Firefox delete cookies by default?

[QuantumG]

Or maybe it's because of the exact same reason that "saved passwords" are not cleared.. so people don't have to log back into websites that have given them a cookie to cache their login.

Re:Why doesn't Firefox delete cookies by default?

[Xtravar]

No, it's because most of the time people just want their browsing history cleared (so people don't see what naughty perverts they are), yet don't want their logins/preferences to be lost. Choice is good, checkboxes are good.

Try this: Click "Tools" -> "Remove tin foil hat"

Re:Why doesn't Firefox delete cookies by default?

[calebt3]

Well, maybe because Mozilla's top sponsor is intensively relying on cookies? So do Yahoo, eBay, M$ Live, etc.

Re:Why doesn't Firefox delete cookies by default?

[Anonymous Coward]

Two words: Google Analytics.

Forget cookies. They are for chumps.

You need NoScript to get the google monkey off your back.

Re:Why doesn't Firefox delete cookies by default?

[moderatorrater]

Because clearing cookies logs you out of those sites that you've saved the password for. Occam's Razor is a really good tool for use with most things, you should try it.

Re:Why doesn't Firefox delete cookies by default?

[rpp3po]

No, it's because most of the time people just want their browsing history cleared (so people don't see what naughty perverts they are), yet don't want their logins/preferences to be lost. Choice is good, checkboxes are good.

I recommend to any wife, whose husband is trusting Firefox' defaults for covering his porn traces, to just use Firefox' builtin "Show cookies". Caches get cleared, cookies are still there. About every porn page he had visited will be listed. And that after he has trusted Firefox' "Clear private data" defaults. Firefox targets an audience where large shares of users wouldn't know what cookies really are. Setting such loose defaults for such an audience just isn't right, especially if your largest sponsor is profiting from this.

Re:Why doesn't Firefox delete cookies by default?

[asa]

> With all this intimate data which can be collected
> by tracing cookies sent to your browser, why in the
> hell doesn't a browser default to delete cookies if
> you tell it to "clear PRIVATE data"???

Because users freak out when they say "clear cookies" and all their username logins disappear. For those of you who want to also clear that, it's right there with the tick of a box. I, for one, would rather manually manage my cookies so I can keep all my logins saved.

- A

Re:Why doesn't Firefox delete cookies by default?

[rpp3po]

Clearing private data primarily means clearing traces you leave publicly. Traces which can and are being used to collect very intimate profiles about many internet users. That's a much bigger privacy concern than traces on your local computer, especially since "Clear private data" just deletes filesystem references without wiping data. For anybody curious enough it won't be hard to undelete cleared local traces.

So Firefox defaults don't clear your public traces at all and your local traces can either be seen by "show cookies" (preferences) or undeleted for an even better picture. I don't understand how my initial post could be moderated 'Troll'. That's just ignorant.

Re:Why doesn't Firefox delete cookies by default?

[nuzak]

Distrust FTW. One-click tracks-covering. You just have to remember to turn it on before surfing those dodgy sites.

Re:Why doesn't Firefox delete cookies by default?

[AaxelB]

Even if the GP ignores your point, he could do well to read up on Hanlon's Razor, a personal favorite of mine. If he's truly convinced that failing to delete cookies by default is idiotic, it seems the logical conclusion is the developers are idiots.

OK, then make MSN the default search

[Rogerborg]

Let the dissembling begin...

Re:OK, then make MSN the default search

[oahazmatt]

OK, then make MSN the default search

No, if they really want to prove it, they'll make the Opera download page their default.

Re:OK, then make MSN the default search

[Constantine XVI]

Opera also gets cash for making Google the default.

Re:OK, then make MSN the default search

[xouumalperxe]

First, I reckon Google specifically pays for the "service" of being the default page and search engine. Mozilla calling the shots on development has nothing to do with contractual conditions on what amounts to "product placement".

Second, I doubt MSN search is actually better than Google, and I certainly can't see the point in making the Opera download page the default home page. That's simply a waste of the users' time.

56 MILLION?!?!?! For what?

[Anonymous Coward]

What exactly is that money for? Where does it go? Developers? Advertising?

I can't imagine paying for advertising at this point. Hell, people tend to use what works best or addresses the current issues, apart from advertising (at least in the FOSS world).

Does it REALLY take 56 Million to develop a web browser? Starting from scratch, I'm sure I could do it for about 250-500k. And that's with salaries, rent and benefits.

I'm not the smartest business guy out there, but I do know Google has a very large role in the alternative browser market. If you don't think the threat of pulling funding (whatever that money is being spent on) is going to have an impact on the development, you've got to be kidding yourself.

Re:Google and Mozilla detest

[Red Flayer]

Reponds is not a word.

Nonsense.

Everyone knows the root of reponds is pond, which is a body of water, often man-made, smaller than a lake.

We also know that bodies of water reflect light off their surface, and further, we know that to reflect means to consider.

To pond is to consider.
A ponder is one who considers.
To repond is to reconsider.
Reponds means reconsiders.

Perhaps you'd like to repond your assumption that reponds is not a perfectly cromulent word?

I dont mind google funding Mozilla

[Billly Gates]

If you dont like then use IE.

Dont like IE? Then use Saffari? Dont like and your using unix then use Konsqueror.

Anything is better than a convicted monopolist running the show with one browser. Even if Google starts another monopoly we still have 4 free browsers which means more competition. The more browsers the better as it forces webmasters to use more standards and cross test their sites on multiple browsers.

To me it seems some of the more free software zealots are terrified about anything that is being funded and not done by hobbiests on their own spare time. Sorry but captitalism is the most efficient system today and Firefox needs funding. Who is going to debug, run the servers, run the projects, develop code, and run extensive QA for free? Google doesn't want the browser market. It only wants the information.

Re:I dont mind google funding Mozilla

[moderatorrater]

The more browsers the better as it forces webmasters to use more standards and cross test their sites on multiple browsers. You're obviously not a webmaster, and as a webmaster I'd just like to say "fuck you." When you spend the better part of a day getting a site to work in one browser and then find out that another browser doesn't work in it, come back to me and say that more is better.

Re:I dont mind google funding Mozilla

[Anonymous Coward]

You're obviously not a good webmaster. Generally if you are writing standards compliant code if it works in firefox it will work in khtml/webkit based, gecko based and opera. If it works in firefox it usually only doesn't work in IE and IE 7 has solved a lot of that. The point is the more browsers there are the better standards compliance has to become. By the next release of IE you will probably find that every browser passes acid 2 at least (firefox 3 beta's do) If IE 8 doesn't, it just underlines more and more how shitty the browser is and the best thing you can do is leave the site broken, do an if ie and place a javascript alert or html message nice and big saying "you are using defunct technology, click here to learn about standards compliant browsers" You can even sign up to adsense and do the firefox referral on this page and make some money. Personally I am making around $600 a month just from firefox referrals through adsense with a site that only gets 2000 unique visitors per day.

Re:I dont mind google funding Mozilla

[TheoMurpse]

Dont like IE? Then use Saffari? Dont like and your using unix then use Konsqueror.

Well, I prefer to use Oprah on my Mcbook Pro.

Re:I dont mind google funding Mozilla

[eosp]

So you can put links in your IE alert()s now?

Re:I dont mind google funding Mozilla

[moderatorrater]

I've had standards compliant javascript code that works in IE and firefox but doesn't work in Safari. I've had things render fine in firefox and safari that don't render in IE. I've had things render in IE 5 that don't in 6, and things that work in IE 6 and 5 that don't work in 7. Saying that we should leave the site broken is well and fine for you and your pedestal, but for sites that charge thousands of dollars an hour, that philosophy is a lot harder to justify. When the best browsers on the market (firefox, opera and safari) don't all render things the same way and parse the same javascript with the same result, how can we expect homogeneity in an even larger market with even more players?

Whether I'm a good webmaster or not doesn't matter; I'm at least as good as the majority of webmasters/coders that I know. The different browsers on the market make html and javascript hell, and more browsers will just make it harder and harder to deal with.

Re:I dont mind google funding Mozilla

[Billly Gates]

If ms had true competition still and used standards you would not have to be in this mess. IE is intentionally broken with no chance of updating their rendering code because MS wants everyone to use windows and not use web apps.

Firefox and others will start forcing ms to use standards as webmasters like yourself will all have fits.

Rendering html and interpreting javascript should be simple like compiling c code on different compilers or reading ascii or unicode.

Re:I dont mind google funding Mozilla

[momfreeek]

IE 7 has solved a lot of that

IE7 does not "solve" anything. Its another platform that needs to be tested on. IE6 still has more market share than IE7 according to this:

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

Can the users demand fixes now?

[recoiledsnake]

Firefox does not look like a very typical FOSS program anymore in which developers don't get any money back from the masses of users. The developers working at Mozilla are getting paid directly from the money that the users are contributing with their clicks. Hence, I think the mantra of 'if you don't like it, fork it" is not really valid in this scenario. Note this is opposed to projects with paid developers like Apache and the Linux kernel which is supported by corporate entities and not end users.

Also, I remember that Mozilla wanted contributions for the NYT ad a few years ago and many of my friends who were students barely scraping by, contributed some of their much needed money to the project. Apart from that I guess a ton of people donated money to Mozilla in the past few years thinking that they needed funding badly. Did Mozilla really need it or were they getting enough money from Google to run that ad by themselves? The fact that the CEO of Mozilla gets a compensation of half a million dollars makes it worse.

Does this also mean the users(who are contributing to the coffers with their use of Firefox) can demand fixes to the nagging bugs and not get a 'if you don't like it fork it' reply? Take a look at this very annoying image captions wrapping bug that plagued users and web developers and was unfixed for seven years despite even stalwarts like XKCD's Randall Munroe complaining in this bugzilla thread. Note that you need to copy paste because bugzilla doesn't allow links from Slashdot https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45375

It makes for very entertaining reading. I personally use Opera(I used to be a big supporter of Firefox back in the day) for it's leanness and speed. I would switch over to Firefox in a flash if they fix the bloatness.

Re:Can the users demand fixes now?

[QuantumG]

Sure, if you don't like it, don't use it.

Then they don't get any money from you.

Re:Can the users demand fixes now?

[DragonWriter]

Does this also mean the users(who are contributing to the coffers with their use of Firefox) can demand fixes to the nagging bugs and not get a 'if you don't like it fork it' reply?

No, no more than individual users of large commercial software packages that are contributing by actually paying licensing fees can "demand" changes and compel a positive response. They can, of course, request changes, and they can, if they aren't satisfied with the response, stop supporting Mozilla with their use of Firefox or otherwise.

If you want the power to demand changes, run your own project. Otherwise, you'll have to convince the people that are running the project that your requests ought to be a priority. Licensing model and payment schemes are largely irrelevant to this fact.

Re:Can the users demand fixes now?

[asa]

>I remember that Mozilla wanted contributions for the
>NYT ad a few years ago and many of my friends who were
>students barely scraping by, contributed some of their
>much needed money to the project. Apart from that I
>guess a ton of people donated money to Mozilla in the
>past few years thinking that they needed funding badly.
>Did Mozilla really need it or were they getting enough
>money from Google to run that ad by themselves?

Donations to this program happened before there was any serious money coming in from Google. Remember, back then we only had a few users and it's users and traffic that generate revenue. Without contributions from our community, Firefox wouldn't be where it is today -- especially early contributions like with the NYT ad project.

-A

Re:Can the users demand fixes now?

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember that Mozilla wanted contributions for the
>NYT ad a few years ago and many of my friends who were
>students barely scraping by, contributed some of their
>much needed money to the project.

Your friends are idiots.

Re:Can the users demand fixes now?

[recoiledsnake]

Sure, if you don't like it, don't use it. Then they don't get any money from you. How many users of Firefox do you think even know about the fact that Mozilla receives tens of millions of dollars from their clicks?

Re:Can the users demand fixes now?

[QuantumG]

You know. You can choose whether or not you want them to get money from your clicks.. frankly, if Google wants to give the Mozilla foundation money for me choosing to use my preferred browser I'm all for it. Better them forking over the cash than me.

Re:Can the users demand fixes now?

[phantomcircuit]

Come on now $500,000 a year for a CEO is chump change in corporate America today, especially for a company that is pulling in more than $50 million a year.

Re:Can the users demand fixes now?

[recoiledsnake]

No, no more than individual users of large commercial software packages that are contributing by actually paying licensing fees can "demand" changes and compel a positive response. They can, of course, request changes, and they can, if they aren't satisfied with the response, stop supporting Mozilla with their use of Firefox or otherwise.

What you said is true, but then why do people who even request fixes and changes get a ton of +5 insightful 'if you don't like it, for it' replies here on Slashdot? Is that a reasonable response to someone who's asking to fix bugs and leaks?

Re:Can the users demand fixes now?

[DragonWriter]

What you said is true, but then why do people who even request fixes and changes get a ton of +5 insightful 'if you don't like it, for it' replies here on Slashdot?

(1) Because slashdot moderation is fairly meaningless. There are lots of + reasons, and very few - reasons, and concepts that are 180-degrees opposed, on the same thread, will get modded up to +5 because different segments of the community approve for different reasons.

(2) Because Slashdot isn't the place to request a fix, and "if you don't like it, fork it" is about the best that can be reasonably expected of Slashdot (except where there is an existing fix, in which case, "if you don't like it, use foo that fixes the problem" is the best response.)

Is that a reasonable response to someone who's asking to fix bugs and leaks?

If they are asking on Slashdot (and not in a thread gathering questions for, say, a lead Mozilla developer for a Slashdot interviewer or an Ask Slashdot piece looking for existing patches, add-ons, etc., that address a need), yes.

If they are asking, say, on Bugzilla, maybe or maybe not, that depends what the specific "bug and leaks" in question are. In many cases, "we don't view this as a high priority fix; you are welcome to either fork Firefox or submit a patch on your own" would be a reasonable response.

Re:Can the users demand fixes now?

[Fully Functional]

But, it's not like the current CEO has actually had much influence on getting that $50 million+ into the foundation. They aren't really working that had to deserve $500,000.

Re:Can the users demand fixes now?

[mqduck]

Hence, I think the mantra of 'if you don't like it, fork it" is not really valid in this scenario. I think it remains as valid as ever. In fact, it's precisely situations like this where the ability and right to fork is most important.

The day Firefox becomes Evil, we have the power to continue the browser as a free, open source project. XFree-86 (or however that's spelled) and X.org is a perfect example.

Yes, THIS is what free software was made for.

Now I undestand what happened to Thunderbird.

[baldusi]

I know I'll be tagged as paranoid. But it might explain why Mozilla separated Thunderbird. Google doesn't want you to use POP3 or IMAP. They want you to use the web. It just might just have been one of the reasons that were considered when making the decision.

Re:Now I undestand what happened to Thunderbird.

[oahazmatt]

Google doesn't want you to use POP3 or IMAP

But doesn't GMail support both of those, now?

Re:Now I undestand what happened to Thunderbird.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm starting to think the same thing myself. Not that it matters. It's OSS, you can't kill it. It'll only die if there's no one who wants to keep working on it. Look at the old Mozilla Suite. Mozilla killed it over three years ago, yet it's still alive and well as SeaMonkey.

So as long as there's a community willing to keep Thunderbird alive, it'll keep flying! ;)

Re:Now I undestand what happened to Thunderbird.

[bahwi]

Well, except about a month ago or so they opened up free IMAP for gmail.

Free IMAP on Gmail slashdot article. And I believe they already have POP3 support(I could be wrong, or maybe it's inwards only).

Re:Now I undestand what happened to Thunderbird.

[asa]

>I know I'll be tagged as paranoid. But it might
>explain why Mozilla separated Thunderbird. Google
>doesn't want you to use POP3 or IMAP. They want
>you to use the web. It just might just have been
>one of the reasons that were considered when
>making the decision.

It wasn't. Google doesn't have any say in what we do beyond the code and services they contribute. They absolutely don't have any involvement or influence in Thunderbird where they don't contribute anything at all.

- A

Re:Now I undestand what happened to Thunderbird.

[indil]

Sure, as a convenience. But they don't get to display ads in the same way, if at all, if your mail is being displayed in an app they don't control.

Re:Now I undestand what happened to Thunderbird.

[owlnation]

Google doesn't want you to use POP3 or IMAP

Not sure I buy that. If they really didn't want you to use it, they'd either not allow it, or do what their competitors Hotmail and Yahoo do -- allow it for a price. My guess is they they do want you not to need to use it, but through good design and features.

I pop my gmail into Thunderbird -- mainly because in the early part of beta gmail wasn't always accessible, there were more glitches than there have been for a few years.

No, sorry, but I suspect the reason Thunderbird was cut out -- and I say this as a long term Thunderbird user -- is because Thunderbird pretty much sucks. I would like that not to be the case -- however, it is. For all the great innovation Firefox has brought, Thunderbird is just a slightly secure version of Outlook Express. It would be better to simply keep Thunderbird maintained and focus development on a real email application, a new one from the ground up completely, an innovative one.

Re:Now I undestand what happened to Thunderbird.

[Crazyswedishguy]

I know it's fairly recent, but just so you know, Gmail supports both IMAP (Idle) and POP3.

Re:Now I undestand what happened to Thunderbird.

[oahazmatt]

See, the argument doesn't really hold up then. If they fear the use of such a feature and view it as dangerous to their business model, they wouldn't offer it all. I'm sure it was offered more by request than for the sake of convenience.

Re:Now I undestand what happened to Thunderbird.

[xant]

Yes, but isn't that the *point*? Your organization isn't going to focus on a product that isn't bringing in any money. Therefore, your organization is--either explicitly or implicitly--going to focus on products and features of products, that do. Maybe Google isn't "calling the shots" i.e. dictating what you do, but money equals power.

Re:Now I undestand what happened to Thunderbird.

[nyctopterus]

It's offered because a lot of people (including me) wouldn't use gmail at all if they didn't. I do used the webmail interface occasionally when I don't have my computer handy, so at least they get that.

Re:Now I undestand what happened to Thunderbird.

[Nqdiddles]

I think it's more about money equalling effort.
A project that is bringing in enough money to support more effort is benfitting from it. I don't see the problem in that. I think it's been stated enough above that it's not about Google - the money they pay to Mozilla is part of a business arrangement that Mozilla also engages in with other search engines. They're making more money because they're more popular, and I'm pretty sure that's something I'm happy about.

Re:Now I undestand what happened to Thunderbird.

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure they don't.

How much of that big payday went to buying corporate shills to troll Slashdot, I wonder?

Of course Mozilla calls the shots...

[uniquename72]

It's open source. If Google wanted to be in control, they would just release their own version.

I RTFA'd, and the whole issue reads like tin-foil hat paranoia or just plain old FUD. Where are the examples of Mozilla bowing to Google's wishes (outside of making them the default search, which they're paying for)?

Re:Of course Mozilla calls the shots...

[Frosty Piss]

It's open source. If Google wanted to be in control, they would just release their own version.

But the point of the question is, why would they do that when they are already paying Mozilla for what they want? If effect aren't they really the magician behind the curtain? If the control the purse strings, isn't Mozilla by default a Google project?

At least, that's the question...

watch the pretty birdie

[SuperBanana]

Google is the default search engine, and supplier of many of the browser's features (anti-phishing, anti-malware, incorrect URL resolution)

...which is the real issue here, to me...though absurd compensation for the CEO and very lopsided revenue from google are others (NO organization should rely on ONE source for its money. Diversification is the name of the game.) Google's services are heavily bundled AND set as the default where there is choice. Does this sound familiar, anyone?

Now, the question is: if Yahoo, Altavisa, Microsoft, Excite, or Ask (was Teoma), or anyone else for that matter, offers similar services to Firefox for free- will they be allowed to get their foot in the door (via a GOOD user interface to allow selection- modifying about:config params doesn't count) or bundled in (ie, included in the official distribution)?

Re:watch the pretty birdie

[asa]

> Now, the question is: if Yahoo, Altavisa, Microsoft, Excite,
> or Ask (was Teoma), or anyone else for that matter, offers
> similar services to Firefox for free- will they be allowed
> to get their foot in the door (via a GOOD user interface to
> allow selection- modifying about:config params doesn't count)
> or bundled in (ie, included in the official distribution)?

I take it you've never used Firefox. We include other search services. We've even defaulted to other search services in some geographic locales. The interface for switching among the included services is super easy and even adding services that are not included are easy to add with a click or two (and there are over 13,000 of them available at mycroft.mozdev.org)

Not only that, any of these companies could (and some do) distribute a custom version of Firefox with their features as the default.

- A

Re:watch the pretty birdie

[mqduck]

...which is the real issue here, to me...though absurd compensation for the CEO and very lopsided revenue from google are others The CEO "compensation" is what troubles me most right now. Mozilla used to simply be the non-profit organization that organized the various Mozilla products. Then it incorporated itself, but promised that it's not really changing. But they've now got a CEO making five fucking thousand thousand a year (counting benifits).

I believe in free software, very strongly. But I also believe that if I do work to make someone else rich, I deserve compensation. Are we now just giving free labor to a corporation, duped by ideology? The setup may be beneficial now, but the nature of the product and its development is turning foul.

Re:watch the pretty birdie

[mqduck]

five fucking thousand thousand Heh, obviously, I meant $500,000, not $500,000,000

Sometimes..

[Viewsonic]

Throwing money at something doesn't automatically create something good. In fact, I think people do the really good work when they're starving artists. Those two guys working out of a garage usually have a hell of a lot more willpower and determination than most fat cats with more money than they know what to do with. They become lax and sterile.

Well, not always. And Firefox is still a damn good product. So long as it stays that way, I'll still be using it. But if they begin to rest on their laurels, the "next big thing" that will put them by the wayside will most likely be another side project out of nowhere from people who are living off Ramen.

Sounds like more Microsoft FUD ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... to try to sink the main threat to IE and Exchange (ie Mozilla's Firefox and Thunderbird).

Which makes me wonder why on earth this story keeps getting posted on sites favorable to F/OSS.

If you want to help Microsoft and hurt F/OSS, keep making an issue of this and posting stories like this.

If you want to help F/OSS, then it'd be smart to find any links that exist between whoever planted (wrote, published) these anti-Mozilla stories and Microsoft.

Prove it. Strike a deal with Yahoo.

[melted]

And then rotate through three major search engines every quarter. This quarter it'll be Yahoo, next - Microsoft, then Google again. I'm sure both Yahoo and Microsoft will be delighted to participate.

Re:Prove it. Strike a deal with Yahoo.

[luserSPAZ]

Yeah, except most people *want* to use Google, which is why it wound up as the default in the first place. The money came later. It's nice that it now pays good money, but it started out as the default because it's just the most useful tool. Maybe we can have this discussion again when there's a more useful search engine out there, when it's actually a concern.

Re:Prove it. Strike a deal with Yahoo.

[evilviper]

Maybe we can have this discussion again when there's a more useful search engine out there, when it's actually a concern.

Clusty is better. Results are just about the same quality as Google, and it does a great job of automatically categorizing them, so you can easily narrow down expansive subjects... eg. searching for "putty" could be a nightmare on google, depending on whether the "putty" you're looking for is the more popular one searched for.

What bothers me, though, isn't that it's not the default, but that it's a PITA to find it.

Click the "G" Google search icon. Go to "Manage Search Engines." Click "Get More Search Engines." Look around that page and realize Clusty isn't there (or Yahoo, or many others)... Click on the "mycroft" link for "More". Clusty again not listed. Type "Clusty" in the Search box. Don't click on the #1 result or you'll get an "image" search. Go down and click on #2. In just 500 short steps, you, too, can have Clusty search installed, replacing Google. Yay!

Re:Prove it. Strike a deal with Yahoo.

[TheRaven64]

Thanks for the tip. I just re-ran a few things I've recently Googled using Clusty and found it was much easier to find the one I wanted. I've often thought with Google that it would be nice to be able to specify a context, and Clusty does that really well.

Re:Prove it. Strike a deal with Yahoo.

[cyfer2000]

who gave you right to change my search engine setting?

Re:Prove it. Strike a deal with Yahoo.

[El_Oscuro]

Pretty nice search engine. Also checkout ask.com which has been cleaned up considerably and has similar context functionality.

Re:Prove it. Strike a deal with Yahoo.

[evilviper]

ask.com's categorization is absolutely useless, and borderline insane for every search I've tried. Clusty just about always gets it right.

Re:Prove it. Strike a deal with Yahoo.

[wishmechaos]

Or you can go to clusty.com, click on the search dropdown icon, and choose 'Add to search bar' at the bottom.

so what?

[jobst]

Even if google is in partial control of Mozilla, so what? you cannot compete against M$ without some BIG $dollars ... having google support mozilla is good!

Yahoo supports open source?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure they have a hand in, but let me know when then donate $50M.

Re:Yahoo supports open source?

[I'm Don Giovanni]

"I'm sure they have a hand in, but let me know when then donate $50M."

"Donate" suggests giving money with no strings attached. This money isn't donated, it's *payment* to lock in Google's services. Just like Google pays dozens of software companies to include Google Desktop and Toolbar in the various installation procedures of software. Even Sun's JVM security updates try to foist Google Toolbar and Desktop onto the user. Disgusting, but Google paid for that. You're VERY naive if you think Google expects nothing back from its 56 million dollar per year bankrolling of Firefox.

Oh, certainly!

[rholland356]

Men serving two masters always say this, and we know it's rubbish.

The truth will be known as soon as conflicting interests have to be resolved.

Re:Google and Mozilla detest

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, according to dictionary.com, to pond is to collect (esp. water) into a pond or large puddle. To repond, therefore, is to collect (esp. water) for a second time, forming a pond or large puddle. I will leave astute binge-drinkers to fill in the blanks.

Finally!

[masterv]

I've been waiting for Mozilla to repond for a long time. I always felt their original pond could not attract the top quality ducks...

Not quite

[Wesley Felter]

Mozilla only spends about $12M per year, and they have a lot in the bank ($70M?). If you do the math, they can survive for several years if the search engines pull the plug.

Google simply is best.

[webmaster404]

Google is simply best, its not because Mozilla and Google somehow are the same, Google just happens to be one of the few search engines that loads fast and doesn't display banner ads all over the place, also, most web users use Google as their homepage, so why not set that as the default? Its simply for practical reasons. Because Firefox on Ubuntu has the Free Software Foundation in the bookmarks does that mean that somehow the FSF is giving Ubuntu tons of money? No it is simply practical same thing with Firefox.

Duh, Google is smart...

[tjstork]

Google's support of Firefox helps the company strategically hedge its bets against Microsoft. If Google had to write a browser from scratch, they could do it, but, it would raise up too many weird signals. However, if Google supports Firefox, and gradually gets its arms around it, they get a browser that is free, a strategic stake in controlling something that can help their business. All the way around its just a smart move for them.

Microsoft owns IE, and would love to screw Google up - imagine the patch to IE that breaks Google... and yet works for whatever MS does on line. FireFox is Google's ace-in-the-hole. If a Windows upgrade comes out and that breaks Google, they tell the users that like Google to just switch browsers, and it will all be ok, and suddenly, Microsoft would be facing a very problem of having its Windows franchise kicked off the internet.

Gates and Co were right about one thing when they set out to destroy Netscape - whoever owns the browser owns the desktop, and, if MS missteps and blows IE's lead over Firefox, then, whatever OS can run Firefox is suddenly a potential operating system rival, and from there, development tool chain, and, after that, everything else.

Mozilla Reponds

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank god for re ponding. I have always worried what Global Warming was going to do to the water supply, Good to know that Mozilla is on top of it!!!

Re: Mozilla Reponds

[Rolgar]

Give the submitter a break. He was probably submitting from an iPhone.

Re: Mozilla Reponds

[chiller2]

Maybe he replied via his iPhone.

Re:56 MILLION?!?!?! For what?

[asa]

> What exactly is that money for? Where does it
> go? Developers? Advertising?

If you read the financial statements that all this is based on, you'd see exactly and precisely where it goes. the bulk of it goes to paying about 100 full-time people and maintaining one of the largest and most capable infrastructures on the planet. Lots also goes into savings/investments for the future.

> Does it REALLY take 56 Million to develop a web
> browser? Starting from scratch, I'm sure I could
> do it for about 250-500k. And that's with salaries,
> rent and benefits.

You go ahead and do that. I'm sure it'll be a huge success. Send me an email with a link when it's shipping to 130 million users.

- A

I cant see what the big deal is.

[EEPROMS]

Many charities and famous personalities get corporate assistance and no one complains when they wear that companies logo or do some other form of viral promotion. Yes I can understand people worrying about Google having sway over the code but lets be honest every corporate sponsorship comes with strings attached. if you can figure out how to pay "everyones" rent based on wishful thinking go for it otherwise we have to go with what we have. It could be worse, Mozilla could have been sponsored by a pro-closed source "Evil"(tm) company

Re:56 MILLION?!?!?! For what?

[Dirk Pitt]

Does it REALLY take 56 Million to develop a web browser?

No.

Roughly $20 million a year in operating cost - 70% of which paid 90 employees. That's 155k (salary and benes) an employee - pretty average for a tech operation I'd imagine.

The rest they've accrued into $70+ million in assets.

Mozilla Foundation does much more than just develop Firefox - RTFA.
 
 

I'm sure I could do it for about 250-500k

Wow, you could develop, test, and host downloads for a software product with a multi-million user-base for 250k? You, sir, are fresh out of college or full of shit.

Support = Control

[Loganscomputer]

It is a simple fact that once an entity provides a majority of the support for an activity it controls it. I agree that at the moment Google is a very good master to be enslaved to. It is likely however, that if Google wanted Mozilla to grow in a different direction that Mozilla would be hard pressed to not follow the $56 million dollar carrot.

Re:Support = Control

[asa]

>It is a simple fact that once an entity provides
>a majority of the support for an activity it
>controls it.

So if I buy 85% of advertising from your newspaper, that means I have an editorial say in what you publish? Bogus.

There's a simple relationship here that may don't seem to (don't want to?) get. Google and Mozilla have a search relationship. Google pays Mozilla for Firefox users that use Google's search services. Other search services also pay Mozilla for Firefox users that use their services. Google is the default because it's the best available search service and the default gets most of the usage so it results in most of the revenue associated with usage. That's the extent of the relationship. They don't have any say outside of that nor do they seem to want any say outside of that (and wouldn't get it if they did). It's not like there aren't a handful of other search services that wouldn't gladly pay for more traffic from Firefox users.

- A

Re:Support = Control

[Threni]

> So if I buy 85% of advertising from your newspaper, that means I have an editorial say in what you publish? Bogus.

If I provide 85% of your newspaper's income, damn right you'd better not piss me off. Thinking of slating my latest product? Think again.

Re:Support = Control

[asa]

> If I provide 85% of your newspaper's income,
> damn right you'd better not piss me off. Thinking
> of slating my latest product? Think again.

Even when there are three other guys at the door willing to pay more for that space? I don't think you get what's going on here.

- A

Re:Support = Control

[dedazo]

Even when there are three other guys at the door willing to pay more for that space? I don't think you get what's going on here.

So why don't you give users the option to choose the search engine they prefer?

Re:Support = Control

[asa]

> So why don't you give users the option to choose
> the search engine they prefer?

We do. Have you actually used Firefox?

- A

Re:Support = Control

[dedazo]

Yes, I've been using it since you released your first alpha. And I wouldn't change the defaults since my preferred search engine happens to be Google.

However, one of the most common complaints about Microsoft is that they ship IE with a default search engine and users are apathetic or not informed enough to change it, thus making Microsoft more money and more evil, Bill Gates is the antichrist, etc.

I fail to see why the same accusation can't be leveled at you, now that your product has moved from being a niche geek toy to a mainstream browser used by Joe Windows?

Seriously, how difficult would it be for you to show me a list of search providers at install time and let me choose the one I prefer?

Re:Support = Control

[Risen888]

So if I buy 85% of advertising from your newspaper, that means I have an editorial say in what you publish? Bogus.

Of course you do. You obviously do not work in the press.

Re:Support = Control

[Fred_A]

> So if I buy 85% of advertising from your newspaper, that means I have an editorial say in what you publish? Bogus. Obviously you've never opened a computing magazine.

Re:Support = Control

[Threni]

> Even when there are three other guys at the door willing to pay more for that space? I don't think you get what's going on here.

Only 15% are even as willing to pay for the space. My father was a journalist for years.

Re:Support = Control

[WWWWolf]

Seriously, how difficult would it be for you to show me a list of search providers at install time and let me choose the one I prefer?

See the little Google icon in the Firefox search box? Now click it.

Last I checked, the last choice was also sticky and/or you could set the default somewhere...

Don't see the search engines you like? Head here.

I don't use the search box myself because it's, frankly, pretty clumsy. I use keyword searches because it's much more powerful: Just right click on a search box on any web page, select "Add keyword for this search", and now you can search whatever you want by typing the keyword and search terms to the address bar. ("g firefox keywords", bam. "wp Mozilla Firefox", bam.)

interesting

[wwmedia]

its interesting how the most comments defend mozilla just cause of google's "do no evil" image

now imagine the outcry if firefox came with live.com as default search and microsoft paud mozilla oh i dunno 120 big ones?

Re:interesting

[asa]

Mozilla wouldn't ship live.com as the default because it's a poorer service than Google and sending 130 million Firefox users to a less good service that uses its profits to attack the very mission of Mozilla -- to promote choice and innovation and be an advocate for the non-commercial aspects of the Web and the people using the Web, is just stupid.

- A

Re:interesting

[wwmedia]

be an advocate for the non-commercial aspects of the Web

i see, they are leading by example then with 50million+ a year income...

Re:interesting

[christopherfinke]

This story should be renamed "Asa Dotzler Responds." (And I, for one, appreciate it.)

Re:interesting

[eraserewind]

which they get buy giving away both a fully functional browser AND the right for anyone to use the source code. Pure capitalist exploitation if you ask me.

Re:interesting

[I'm Don Giovanni]

" to promote choice and innovation and be an advocate for the non-commercial aspects of the Web and the people using the Web, is just stupid."

An advocate for the "non-commercial aspects of the Web"? Are you for real? I think you've drank too much of your own Kool-Aid. Hello! Google epitomizes the very commercial aspects of the Web! And you're in bed with them. Are you blind to your own business?

Wait until there is someting to haggle about.

[miffo.swe]

I really do not understand the constant need some people have to paint Google in a bad manner. Up until this very day Google has been a good netizen and last i checked they wasnt involved in any criminal acts like some other unnamed company. Mozilla does a great job on Firefox and nothing is really worth complaining about. If Google is twisting Mozilla.orgs arm they dont get much for all that money thats for sure. The damn browser is free, both as in beer and freedom. Just fork it or shut up. I do have a fealing that much of the complaints against Google are coordinated attempts to blacken its very good reputation. Maybe from some other company that do not have a, should we say, excellent track record in behaiving nicely. As a very satisfied Firefox "customer" i want to say, thanks Google and Mozilla!

Re:Wait until there is someting to haggle about.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just fork it or shut up.

This is "insightful"?

... nothing is really worth complaining about.

Firefox can update itself, redirect the flow of our browsing information (anti-phish? puh-leeze), and manages to hide dozens of privacy sensitive options such that you have to research the changes/options just to get a browser free of plug-in nags. You can fork IE if you give it some thought. The point is that one shouldn't have to. Firefox abuses its "defaults" IMO. Like the default to hijack the home page after every fricking update.

Audio captcha (yeah, I can't see the graphic): vented

Re:Google and Mozilla detest

[Daimanta]

Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?

Firefox?

[Anonymous Coward]

Firefox?

What's that?

All the cool people are using Opera these days.

Re:Google and Mozilla detest

[IronChef]

It is unpossible to refute that.

Add-ons

[AsherMaximum]

All the add=ons developed by the Mozilla community are what make Firefox great. As long as the ability to add to the browser never goes away, t doesn't matter what Google does or ddoesn't do.

Should *nix distros customize FF & earn the mo

[nektra]

Should Linux/Unix distributions fork Firefox to collect money from Google instead of Mozilla Corporation? Why not change the configuration of Firefox's boxes in Ubuntu to point to the highest bidder?

Fuck Mozilla

[TFGeditor]

I have used Firefox for, lo, these many years. It (Mozilla) has yet to address the memory leak and resourcece (cpu time) issues related to Firefox. Why?

I love the verasitility of Firefox and its functionailty. But I hate that it fucks up/freezs my machine when left open.

If Firefox wants to be taken seriously, fix these goddamned problems.

Firefox is not bloated

[Locklin]

Bloated is the wrong word. Konqueror has an order of magnitude more features than Firefox, but works much faste. I'm sure Konqueror and it's dependencies are also much much more than 6 Mb. However, something to do with the architecture of Firefox is seriously flawed: not only does it leak memory like a siv, the UI and page rendering has slowed with each release (I know, I use it on a 600 Mhz coppermine processor with 128 Mb ram). Additionally, one page with a lot of (poor) javascript can lock up the whole browser for several minutes - why isn't each tab it's own thread?

I use it for several reasons, but latency is an issue that should be given some thought.

You've missed the point

[Rix]

I'm sure Yahoo would love to take over google's payments.

Ok. You call the shots?

[killmofasta]

ok. Since the Dirtbag Director of the mozilla calls the shots,
how about KICKING DOWN SOME DEVELOPMENT CASH? like a bit more than a measly 7% of your daily bread? Mod me TROLL. Im angry about this. He gets 1/2 a millon bucks a year, and kicks down only 30k? He probibly pays more than that for transportation.

This is the absolutly greatest opportunity to burn Redmond to the ground, and he is just being greedy about it. Id rather give my buchs to a wino on the street. Its honest. You know where the money is going. But its not like I pay for mozilla. but DAMN. I made about 40k last year. I easly gave at least 5k to work that improves others lives.

I have no utter idea what the man is thinking...other than "He who dies with the most cash wins."

I will refrain from using any more derrigatory terms.

==End soap box==

Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

With 56 million you think they could fix some of the memory problems

Dear Mr. Shaver,

[Anonymous Coward]

For immediate release: "We Call the Shots, Not Google."

Regards,
Eric Schmidt

Product placement

[Kozz]

I mean, do we really think that Nissan is approving scripts for Heroes and other NBC shows that have the new Rogue in them? No! It's advertising, and I'm sure Nissan pays a hefty to price to ensure that the script for "Claire's dad gives her a new [insert car]" says "[Nissan Rogue]" instead.

Uhm, yeah... was I the only one who felt dirty after that shameless bit of product placement? Felt like Heroes met The Truman Show. Blech.

ie7 more neutral when it comes to search

[john_uy]

if they claim to be more neutral, then at the start of the installation, they should prompt the user for whatever search engine they prefer and not default to anything (it should always go to a selection screen when one searches.)

take the case of ie7, when i installed it, it asks me for my search engine preference. but the default search bar goes to live.

Re:ie7 more neutral when it comes to search

[asa]

> if they claim to be more neutral, then at the start of
> the installation, they should prompt the user for whatever
> search engine they prefer and not default to anything
> (it should always go to a selection screen when one searches.)

Where did Mozilla claim to be "neutral". We're most certainly not. If we were neutral, we'd have to offer users a choice of about 20,000 different search options at startup. We claim to build a product that's best for the users and best for the health of the open Web. We're not neutral. We're advocates. We've picked a side. We're on the side of the user and on the side of an open and improving Web. If we didn't think Google was the best search service for our users, it wouldn't be the default. Our decisions always put the users ahead of the money.

- A

Re:56 MILLION?!?!?! For what?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not how good Firefox is or How good Google is.
It's that's the best we can get for now.

Whether it's worth 56 million for first place is the question.

I am surprised MS did not pay more money to put it's search into firefox tough.
56 million is like nothing for Microsoft.

Google gets away with what Microsoft Couldn't...

[milette]

Gee, interesting how Google enjoys exactly the same benefits with FireFix that Microsoft was slammed for with their OWN browser. In fact, with the DNS Error redirect, they are taking this even a step further.

56 million a year is PEANUTS compared to what they get out of the deal -- and it seems nobody is forcing them to 'open up'. Hypocracy at its finest.

In other news...

[PinkyDead]

Monkey claims he calls the tune, not the Organ Grinder. More at 11.

What a co-incidence of favors

[Ilgaz]

anti-phishing, anti-malware, incorrect URL resolution are all either sending private data to Google which they normally wouldn't have (Anti phishing,malware) or creates a huge opportunity of search and further brand recognition when you type incorrect url.

In fact, nobody from Firefox could explain why people are sent to "news search" (Google by default) when they type plain "news" to URL field and they require special key to fill .com and send to cnet news.com for example.

Google should play openly and say the facts, I can't care less for their search engine or Firefox but I hate being treated as stupid.

I also have couple of words to Apple: Putting Google as default search engine to Safari along with referrer to default browser of a $130 Operating system and preventing users to change it without hacks is plain lame.

I had nothing against Google until they started playing these games. Lots of people who became against Google shares same feelings too. They already have the search monopoly, everyone memorized Google.com as search engine, their search fits well to people using it and there is no reason to act like some evil dictator of Internet even involving Thunderbird end of official support.

Remember once everyone ignored Microsoft if it doesn't fit to their needs but not necessarily "hate" them until they started pure evilness with IE. Even Fortune 500 giants should learn from history.

Code Bloat.... yet -- the darn thing still works!

[CodeShark]

Hmmm. Mozilla 2.X is dozens of times more secure than in the early days in spite of ever increasing attempts to hack it, runs ever newer versions of the JavaScript engine, ties in Flash, Silverlight, XML, and still manages to be agile enough to be my browser of choice (granted, I'm stuck in WinXX land for a while still at work) And is fundamentally beholden to no-one in terms of trying to monopolize the net?

So why should I complain -- given that I haven't concentrated on the code bloat or other problems myself? (my Open source stuff is in other areas) So if the complaint is that the "little engine that could" survive has grown up to be the "big engine that has to carry the world", maybe we as a collective whole ought to get off our butts and help fix things (volunteers for refactoring the code, anyone?) rather than being the global b---- and moan community.

Gosh what a bunch of retards

[alexborges]

Okay slashdot geeks:
1) YOU DO NOT OWN THE MOZILLA CODE

2)If mozilla keeps making my very fine browser and make money by doing it, they are welcome to go to have a farking orgy with the original google geeks.

3) Ive delved superficially on mozdevelopment and everyone there is nice, concentrated, a bit bofhish sure, but no more than most GOOD FOSS projects.

4) Google can call the shots all they want, we will be able to fork the browser if something against principle happens.

5)If mofo's CEO wants his half a mill check, and is able to get into mofo about 140 times that, he should VERY WELL DAMNED get his money, no questions asked.

Now stop whyning and start CODING you asthma ladden, tongue in cheek, caffeine poping geeks.

Spelling

[KalgarThrax]

Editors: You may want to fix the title of the article.

Yep, tastes like FUD

[Titoxd]

In fact, nobody from Firefox could explain why people are sent to "news search" (Google by default) when they type plain "news" to URL field and they require special key to fill .com and send to cnet news.com for example. Except when I tried it, it sent me to CNN, not Google News. My version of Firefox is 2.0.0.9, and I haven't changed search engines or played around with the default settings. Unless you are saying that Google wants to send traffic to CNN for some obscure reason, I think the only flavor here is simple FUD.