Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mozilla and Google's "Don't-Be-Evil" Bulldozer

Posted by timothy on from the not-a-transcript-but-better-than-one dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Mozilla execs John Lilly and Mitchell Baker were interviewed at the WSJ's All Things Digital conference last week. In a wide-ranging conversation, they discussed the history of Firefox, proprietary versus Open Source development and the debut of Chrome and Mozilla's changing relationship with Google. A great interview. Well worth reading. There's video as well."

68 of 95 comments (clear)

  1. Bulldozer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The bulldozer quote comes from the interviewer, not the Mozilla guys.

    Sometimes it's best to make your own news.

    1. Re:Bulldozer by mrwolf007 · · Score: 1

      Oh woh, browser war.
      The good ol OS wars turned into browser wars.
      I dont give a fuck about it. Do i have to open a link in my bookmarks or click a desktop icon?
      Just DO something usefull and people will like it (or nor, ok), HTML is just a simple way of tranferring info.
      If its really worth it, or you need some special effects, might as well learn to code instead of learning flash.
      I mean, whats the difference, imbedded in browser or click run, come on guys, dont know how to code anymore?

    2. Re:Bulldozer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      What part of Google Update (bg service, auto startup, copies self to various tmp dirs so you can't add a rule to your firewall for it) is 'do no evil'?

  2. Love that statement by jfbilodeau · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "Walt: Why wouldn't it just be better for the consumer to go with the company that's hired experts to do its translations? Baker: How much software do you really think is great? Walt: Not very much. Lilly: But it's all written by experts. Walt nods, point taken."

    --
    Goodbye Slashdot. You've changed.
    1. Re:Love that statement by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Funny

      Perhaps a question along the lines of "And how much great software was written by non-experts?" would have been more fitting.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:Love that statement by SirJorgelOfBorgel · · Score: 1

      It is a good quote :) About the translation thing though, I've noticed these 'expert translators' are not often very good. They know their languages well, of course, but often not the technology. Finding a pro translator that does know both is hard and very expensive. The volunteers are often enthousiasts who do know both the language and the software/technobabble needed. While it may not always be apparent for simple products (in terms of technobabble involved), niche tech apps can quickly run into this problem. I've seen very good volunteer translation work and very bad professional ... even at closed-source commercial corps.

    3. Re:Love that statement by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      "The volunteers are often enthousiasts who do know both the language and the software/technobabble needed."

      That's just wishful thinking, at least as far as my language is concerned. This is exactly why I have made the comment above. I have yet to see a volunteer translator (1) who knows his or her language so well that he or she is able to write text that "feels natural" (as if written anew, that is, that does not have a "smell" of a translation); (2) who knows the established terminology in the field instead of inventing nonsense *and* who - in case of necessity - can invent new terminology that does not stick out of the existing corpus; and (3) who truly understands the internals, in case of ambiguous source text. Educated translators have no problem with (1), but mastering (2) in the field of technical translation takes time and therefore pro translators specialize. Specialized software helps, but a corpus or database in *any* form is absolutely essential. As a welcome side effect of checking the existing texts for possible clashes caused by new terms, existing inconsistencies get also resolved. Few people bother with this. (3) requires technical (EE/CS - in this area, at least) intuititon which even fewer of them have - mostly the young ones succeed at this. Therefore, technical review is necessary besides of the ordinary language QA.

      As far as as enthusiasts having (3) trying to master (1) and (2) are concerned, I yet have to see results better than dismal. It seems to me that even mastering (1) by "purely technical people" is an unfrequent event.

      Such people exist, and I know of them, but even then, they are - for the most part - editors of local electronic media, editing or writing original articles. But then again, they are not translators, they have little experience in upholding (1) in face of a translation task. It is all to easy to let "Englisishms" slip into my language even if you try to avoid it. You really need experience and a healthy dose of long-time self-criticism for this. The skills of (2) are very specialized, and even in a translation company, it is best to assign the "rubberstamping" of new terminology to a small group of people who are aware of the "bigger picture". Translators can propose new terms but they have no "patent on wisdom".

      Having said that, Mozilla in my language fares surprisingly well (and perhaps, in the light of that, I should have softened the statements in the first paragraph). But I know that it due to a rare selection of bright individuals at the (local) steering wheel. Other FLOSS projects, sadly, are much less fortunate in this respect.

      And yes, IAAET (I Am An Expert Translator).

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  3. oh by ushdfgakj · · Score: 1, Funny

    Censorship is not evil!!!! Worship GOOGLE!!!! Give us more money!!!!!

  4. Re:Yay for bullshitting ourselves by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Yes. All you need to do is Google yourself, and it'll return a realtime photo.

  5. Fear of the computer by goldaryn · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Walt asks about the Firefox growth curve. Baker says the curve has been relatively linear after an initial spike. "Why don't people use Firefox?" Walt asks. Lilly says people just aren't aware. "Most people think of the browser as a pane of glass; they don't realize that it really effects the way they see the Web. Baker adds that many people fear their computers, and that might make them reticent to experiment with a new browser.

    This last part really is a salient point. I think it's true that average end user really does come to fear the PC, and, in my experience, their local IT geek by association. "Leave the damn thing alone!" they cry, "I don't care about OpenOffice, or Foxit Reader, or Notepad++".

    Bad experiences tend to be a motivator in this aspect, but sometimes it sends people the other way. After a spyware attack, say, people tend to go one of two ways: even more afraid of their PC or they become open minded to new things like Firefox. That's just my experience..

    1. Re:Fear of the computer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Furthermore, this makes the point that it is in Microsoft's interest to not make the computer too safe. If people become comfortable experimenting with their machines, they might learn they don't need Microsoft software.

    2. Re:Fear of the computer by skywolf3 · · Score: 1

      Most users who are not that savvy with computers tend to fear them and shy away from new things like Firefox and OpenOffice. Another thing that hurts these is sites that purport to sell Firefox and OpenOffice support packages. You find them often as sponsored links in search engines. This can cause problems as the software is free to download from the official site, downloads from those sites might open them up to spyware or viruses and last, but not least, it's a damn rip off. For a second I thought google might make an effort to not allow those sites to sponsor ads for keywords like Firefox?

    3. Re:Fear of the computer by StormReaver · · Score: 1

      > I think it's true that average end user really does come to fear the PC, and, in my experience, their local IT geek by association.

      Yes, and for good reason.

      > [Average end users] don't care about OpenOffice, or Foxit Reader, or Notepad++

      They start to care when the latter are presented as solutions to the former. When users vocalize the reasons they fear the PC, and are presented with Free (or just free) software that reduces or eliminates those reasons, they become a lot more receptive to the alternatives.

      Users at my workplace loath Adobe Reader because it causes their already overburdened PC to go even slower while that pig of a program loads. Out of over 600 employees, only two or three do anything more with PDF files than just read them. When informed that Foxit Reader will let them view their PDF files without slowing down their PC, their interest in piqued. When they actually experience the dramatic performance improvement, they are sold.

      Users also complain ferociously when Internet Explorer kills Windows or fails to render the department's banking website. The first thing I do is install Firefox, and have them try again. Not only has Firefox worked better in every single case, the users are stunned when I tell them that if Firefox does manage to crash, it won't take the rest of their work with it, unlike Internet Explorer. Another easy sell.

    4. Re:Fear of the computer by Paaskonijn · · Score: 1

      All too true.

      I just sent a myspace link to a friend, because I wanted her to check out this band's music. The page told her to update her flash player. So I asked her: "Why don't you?". Her reply? "I don't want to install anything new anymore."

      Before you chime in and claim she'd be helped by something like Ubuntu's update-manager, here's a story about another friend.
      She had received an old computer from an uncle and wanted to use it to use it for e-mail, surfing the net and watching tv via DVB. I set her up with an Ubuntu system and she couldn't be happier. (Yes, an actual success story, imagine that. :p)
      However, during the first two months she's asked five times whether she *really* should install the updates she keeps getting notified about. Despite me explaining to her they're security updates and that she's safer if she does, something about the updates really scared her.

      And then there's this other friend who keeps delaying software installs of software she actually needs and trusts, because she finds the installation process terrifying.

      These are all young people (between 19 and 26) who use computers on a daily basis.

      Yes, most people are afraid of computers. They go by the "if ain't broken, for the love of God don't touch it" adage. And when it does break (most likely due to this behaviour), they'll find a nerdy friend to fix it for them. And install new versions of all their software of course. :p

    5. Re:Fear of the computer by nametaken · · Score: 1

      I blame the bulk of this on our regular pissings on how "stupid people" have installed malware on their own systems.

      If they don't trust that they'll know a good program from a bad one, they'd rather just leave the computer as it is.

    6. Re:Fear of the computer by goldaryn · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Furthermore, this makes the point that it is in Microsoft's interest to not make the computer too safe. If people become comfortable experimenting with their machines, they might learn they don't need Microsoft software. - currently (-1, Troll)

      I don't think the parent is trolling. It seems like a valid point in general that there is effectively two ways to sell things to people, be it new or existing customers.

      Way 1: desire / feel good.......Example: The iPod. I want one of those and/or I will feel good

      Way 2: fear / feel bad..........Example: beauty products. I fear I am ugly (and I will not be loved)

      Obviously there are shades of grey, i.e. most products are both to varying degrees. But the culture of fear at the moment is something that nearly every company uses. So, the parent is right. It IS in Microsoft's interest to not make the computer too safe. They might not necessarily go round explicitly scaremongering (FUD and so on), perhaps they do, I don't know. But parent is right, effectively.

    7. Re:Fear of the computer by Threni · · Score: 1

      > Despite me explaining to her they're security updates and that she's safer if she does, something about the updates really scared
      > her.

      Your explanations to her miss the point. She doesn't see them as 'security updates'. She sees them as 'programs which change the way my computer works', and it sounds like she's perfectly happy with the way it works. Updates should be rolled out automatically. "Do you want to make your computer safer by applying this update" is a stupid question. The question should be "do you want to stop automatically applying security updates?" and it should never be asked, and if it is, the answer should be "no".

    8. Re:Fear of the computer by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not only has Firefox worked better in every single case, the users are stunned when I tell them that if Firefox does manage to crash, it won't take the rest of their work with it, unlike Internet Explorer.

      I daresay that you're spreading a bit of FUD here. I don't think crashing IE has caused general system crashes (and loss of work in other programs) since Windows ME or so. I love firefox myself, but I'm going to convince others to use it on its merits, not on the basis of incorrect facts about the competition.

      As to the rest: the problem is that most PC users don't have anyone willing to show them other options; or to demonstrate why they should use them. Most don't even know anybody in a position to.

    9. Re:Fear of the computer by goldaryn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think Mozilla needs to come up with an "official" consistent unbranded name for firefox for FOSS projects or start accepting upstream patches for other operating systems so that they can be blessed with trademark use.

      That reminds me of something.

      Imagine the average Firefox newbie. Do they really, really care if Mozilla is v2.0.2, v2.0.12, v3.0.10 or whatever. Why not just drop the whole "v3.0.10 is now available for download!" and just say "Update available. Want to update your Firefox?". Because anyone who knows the first thing about computers can go to Help -> About and check their version if they really want. To Joe Moz in the street who wants to browse and isn't yet a disciple, all the version stuff is just numbers. It means nothing. It's making their browsing experience a bit more complicated as opposed to a bit more easy.

    10. Re:Fear of the computer by retchdog · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hell, I've been using linux for years and I'm skittish about an update which involves the kernel. If I have a presentation later that day or the next, I'll put it off until afterward. I don't want to be googling and dmesg'ing the bug in console for upward of an hour, when I have something else to do. It has happened...

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    11. Re:Fear of the computer by socsoc · · Score: 1

      How the hell does a quote about trademarks remind you that everyone should be confused about vague updates? It already downloads transparently in the background, prompting the user with a version number update makes more sense for everyone but the Luddites.

    12. Re:Fear of the computer by ozbird · · Score: 1

      Way 3: makes you a chick magnet. (Hey, it worked for "three wolf moon" t-shirts...)

    13. Re:Fear of the computer by goldaryn · · Score: 1

      Hell, I've been using linux for years and I'm skittish about an update which involves the kernel. If I have a presentation later that day or the next, I'll put it off until afterward. I don't want to be googling and dmesg'ing the bug in console for upward of an hour, when I have something else to do. It has happened...

      Parent is +++ insightful. I totally agree. I am by no means a Linux noob (I help noobs on the Ubuntu forums on occasion) but I too have been in that position, and done the exact same thing. I'd never touch that update button the day before a deadline, never!

      In an odd way, there is a parallel between my earlier point and this one. Be it unfounded fear or "rational", experienced based caution, there's definitely a common theme here...

    14. Re:Fear of the computer by AnyoneEB · · Score: 1

      Agreed: Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux/*BSD are all broken in that they allow the user to install malware -- software that does stuff no user would ever want. (Some other operating systems like gaming consoles or the iPhone's OS "fix" this by only allowing vendor approved apps.) A better solution would be default limited rights for apps. For example, if a user actually wants to make 100 connections per minute on port 25, they probably know what they are doing. Similarly for a key logger. None of Windows, OS X, and *nix make such limitations easy, if they are even possible. This should be considered a flaw in their UI or the OS itself, not the user.

      Another major problem is the lack of ubiquitous undo for everything (even uninstalling applications, deleting system files, changing system settings). Windows tries to approximate this with System Restore, but I have never seen that do any good (but maybe Windows has gotten better in this area since I last used it). OS X has Time Machine, which is a real step in the right direction. Effectively unlimited trustable undo would mean the user would not be scared of messing things up because they would also feel safe that they could undo their changes.

      Making operating systems robust but usable and discoverable for all users is no minor task, but it should be a goal.

      --
      Centralization breaks the internet.
    15. Re:Fear of the computer by Vu1turEMaN · · Score: 1

      Indeed, but don't forget that Microsoft can make money with comfortable computing on a subscription-based model.

    16. Re:Fear of the computer by svunt · · Score: 1
      A friend of mine rang me a fortnight ago because he was setting up a new internet connection at home and was having problems..."It says I'm connected but I can't get to any websites". I suggested he try IE just to confirm that it was a connection issue, and not a browser setting. No luck, we had to try a few other things, eventually it got fixed.

      Cut to yesterday and he's having trouble accessing a particular page. After about ten minutes of troubleshooting on the phone, I asked "You aren't still using IE are you?"
      "No, I'm using...oh wait, yeah it is IE".
      Average users really do see the browser as a pane of glass with internets on the other side, it's a perfect description.

    17. Re:Fear of the computer by retchdog · · Score: 1

      Windows (XP, since SP2) and Mac were better in this regard.

      I use linux still because it's easier for me to get stuff done overall, but kernel updates do make me flinch.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    18. Re:Fear of the computer by mad.frog · · Score: 1

      The page told her to update her flash player. So I asked her: "Why don't you?". Her reply? "I don't want to install anything new anymore."

      Wow, I guess HTML5 is not gonna be rockin' her world anytime soon then...

    19. Re:Fear of the computer by TheLink · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe your myspace link was fine.

      But I doubt your friend should make it a habit of updating her "flash player" based on what some myspace page tells her.

      See the thing is, it isn't that safe. The malware writers are really out to get people like your friend. And even "legit" software makers have done pretty dubious and stupid stuff (in addition to making pretty bad mistakes).

      So some of them have been burnt so badly they've decided it's better to not install anything new anymore.

      Even if as a result they are more vulnerable to being infected by malware that slows down their computers. The funny thing is most AV programs nowadays already make computers a lot slower, so if the malware disables the AV programs and runs, they might not notice the difference ;).(Yes I know there are other evil things malware do ).

      The big problem is users can't tell the difference between an OK "update" and a not OK "update".

      Truth is figuring that out is not an easy problem. In fact from a theoretical POV, it's harder than solving the halting problem, since:

      1) They don't necessarily have meaningful access to a _true_ description of the program (or update in this case).
      2) They don't know what all the inputs are.

      A halting problem is: given a description of a program and a finite input, decide whether the program finishes running or will run forever. It's been proven to be unsolvable.
      The update/install problem is: given a potentially false description of a program, decide whether the program will screw up your system or not. Go figure.

      The people who make operating systems should make things easier and safer than that (I've proposed a way before, but we're getting off topic enough already).

      --
    20. Re:Fear of the computer by TheLink · · Score: 1

      Yeah something like this might help:

      http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-bugs/2007-09/msg02994.html
      https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/156693

      Not easy to implement.

      --
    21. Re:Fear of the computer by EatHam · · Score: 1

      If people become comfortable experimenting with their machines, they might learn they don't need Microsoft software.

      People in general do not want to experiment with their machines. They want to turn them on and have them perform the functions they are used to performing in a way they are used to performing them.

    22. Re:Fear of the computer by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      This might be feasible for some applications, but how many projects really separate security and feature updates? Do you want to pay someone to back-port all security fixes from the development branch to some arbitrary release branch? For every release? If not, then security updates will always have the potential to change other things.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    23. Re:Fear of the computer by Pollardito · · Score: 1

      I haven't had IE crash the entire PC in a long time, but I've seen it take down Windows Explorer and therefore cause a desktop/taskbar restart. I think I've had to restart the desktop via Task Manager at a time like that too, something I'm not sure the typical user is going to know how to do.

    24. Re:Fear of the computer by AnyoneEB · · Score: 1

      Interesting links, thanks. Good to know I'm not the only one that thinks that is needed. I especially like the named profiles idea.

      It's only not easy because giving a program less rights than the user running it is not a concept native to Unix (I suppose that could be hacked around by creating a user and separate chroot jail for each unknown program...). On the other hand, on a system like, say, Plan 9 where each program has its own namespace -- and everything is a file -- it is easy to simply either not put stuff in the namespace or put a fake "tcp" folder in the namespace which actually acts as an application-level firewall.

      --
      Centralization breaks the internet.
  6. not very interesting by bcrowell · · Score: 4, Informative

    I disagree with the slashdot summary. The article is really not that interesting at all. It's very shallow, and it's aimed at a general audience, not a geek audience. I didn't learn anything from it at all. Seriously.

    --
    Find free books.
    1. Re:not very interesting by dblackshell · · Score: 1
      you knew Firefox was available in 72 languages?

      Lilly says Thunderbird is not a niche app.

      How is Thunderbird not a niche app?

      --
      $god = null;
      if($god) echo 'I believe!';
    2. Re:not very interesting by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1

      Email is not a niche app. Aside from webmail and Outlook (which is $$), there's Thunderbird, and... okay, Eudora is probably still around, Pegasus Mail probably isn't dead yet.... and, ah.... idunno, Thunderbird's kinda the big one in any geek's repertoire. unless they're using mutt or something. :P

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    3. Re:not very interesting by dblackshell · · Score: 1

      wow, that sounds exactly like saying IE is not a niche app...

      --
      $god = null;
      if($god) echo 'I believe!';
    4. Re:not very interesting by kv9 · · Score: 1

      Aside from webmail and Outlook (which is $$), there's Thunderbird, and... okay, Eudora is probably still around, Pegasus Mail probably isn't dead yet.... and, ah.... idunno, Thunderbird's kinda the big one in any geek's repertoire.

      Opera Mail, best mail. Mail.app is pretty spiffy too.

      --
      Stop Computers/Cars Analogies on S
    5. Re:not very interesting by dzfoo · · Score: 1

      There's The Bat, from RitLabs, which is a very versatile e-mail client. It used to be mostly for power users, having extremely complicated features, until version 3, when the developers tried to appeal to the mainstream. It is now a polished and refined e-mail program, with more features than most. It is reminiscent of a modern version of Pegasus or Eudora. In fact, I switched from Eudora to The Bat when Eudora started feeling a bit stale.

      There's other e-mail clients out there, it's just that e-mail is such a basic function of the Internet that most people use their e-mail clients as second nature and forget it's there at all.

            -dZ.

      --
      Carol vs. Ghost
      ...Can you save Christmas?
  7. Re:Can't See Comment Titles by nausea_malvarma · · Score: 3, Funny

    Pull your head out of your GNU/Ass and fix your fucking code.

    Gimme the source code for lib0ass. I wanna compile my own.

    ...I'm lonely

  8. Re:Can't See Comment Titles by cheesecake23 · · Score: 1

    My comment titles also appear white on white in some parts of slashdot (Firefox 3.0.10 on WinXP), but only when I am logged in. I suspected the problem was a missing stylesheet, and used Greasemonkey to reinject it successfully. An easier but temporary fix (for me) is to just click the "change" button in the threshold/sorting dialog.

  9. Put honest links in the @#$@ summary by randomchicagomac · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Seriously? A link to "http://bit.ly/4S53f"? There is no *good* reason why slashdot shouldn't use direct links, rather than this URL shortening nonsense, in story summaries. I'd like to know where I'm going in deciding whether to RTFA. Here, the link actually does go to the WSJ's "All Things Digital" site, at http://d7.allthingsd.com/20090528/d7-interview-mitchell-baker-and-john-lilly/ .

    Also, as for Timothy's "not-a-transcript-but-better-than-one" heading: no. This summary in the text is not as good as a transcript, and the video is not as good as a transcript, because reading a transcript is faster, and is something I can do at work. (Yes, I know that it's Sunday).

    1. Re:Put honest links in the @#$@ summary by nametaken · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's version 2.Oh, man... get with the program. We're fuckin' synergizin' here.

    2. Re:Put honest links in the @#$@ summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Absofrigginlutely!

      Whenever I see a shortened link, I just assume it directs to goatse.

  10. Re:Can't See Comment Titles by mahaman · · Score: 2, Informative

    Click the "change" button near the top and the headers will magically appear. It's a workaround, and no substitute for fixing the code, but...

    --
    Mea navis aëricumbens anguillis abundat.
  11. Re:Can't See Comment Titles by donatzsky · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I have the same problem, but only when I get to the discussion from the rss feed. If I go through the front page there are no problems. Oh, and logging in from the discussion page gives an error saying that something don't exist.
    I use the classic discussion format, btw.
    It seems that what happens is that the new and old formats gets mixed together.

    --
    VPS-like shared hosting, on under-crowded servers.
  12. Re:Can't See Comment Titles by Fusen · · Score: 2, Informative

    https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&aid=2797951&group_id=4421&atid=104421 official bug submitted

  13. Hair... by RobDollar · · Score: 5, Funny

    Did google cut funding half way through Mitchell Bakers' haircut?

    Or is the haircut open source, so anyone can come along and change it as they please?

    1. Re:Hair... by Pinktits · · Score: 1

      I'd say it's time for a fork.

    2. Re:Hair... by Epsillon · · Score: 1

      Yes, it would probably be more effective than the knife they used...

      --
      Resistance is futile. Reactance buggers it up.
    3. Re:Hair... by MLS100 · · Score: 1

      I have no mod points so you'll have to settle for kudos. That made me laugh pretty hard.

      What perplexes me though is why anyone would bother to click on the pictures (or even include more than one picture in an article like this) to begin with. It's not a Miss Teen USA pageant where I need hi-res closeups of the participants to make my judgment on their 'moral character'.

    4. Re:Hair... by inu_maru · · Score: 1

      You mean, like Yoko Ono's "Cut Piece", but on hair? Scary...

      --
      Mu
  14. Re:Can't See Comment Titles by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 3, Funny

    It was probably done to piss you off. I mean - you, specifically. Taco woke up one day, and said "I'm going to make a series of changes that will break the site. It will affect tens of thousands of people, but all I care about is that it pisses BitZtream off".

  15. Re:It's "Do No Evil", not "Don't Be Evil" by Silent+Objection · · Score: 5, Informative

    You've got that entirely backwards. The motto is "Don't Be Evil," and is commonly misquoted as "Do No Evil." http://investor.google.com/conduct.html

  16. Re:It's "Do No Evil", not "Don't Be Evil" by Alascom · · Score: 3, Informative

    As a long time Googler, I can tell you the correct motto is "Don't be Evil".

    Google's motto is 'Don't be Evil', and we have a similar motto for web developers: 'Don't be Eval'. (its kind of funny if you've ever dealt with security and user input, if not, you won't get it even if I explained it)

    Saying 'do no evil' is being delusional and assuming you are perfect. Instead "don't BE evil" is about always trying to do the right thing, and when you occasionally screw up, accepting responsibility and trying to make things right.

  17. Re:It's "Do No Evil", not "Don't Be Evil" by JustinOpinion · · Score: 4, Informative

    Actually, no.

    The traditional expression may be "Do No Evil" (as in the wise monkeys stories), but Google's motto is specifically "Don't be evil".

    The distinction is important, too. As far as I can tell, Google intended their motto to be an internal shorthand way of saying "let's run the company in a way that doesn't piss off users--give people what they want and make them have a good experience..." Hence "Don't be evil" -- don't do things that will make users say "this company is an asshole" (e.g. forcing lock-in, being "too corporate", nickel and diming customers...). Just read the story of how the motto was coined: it was an attempt by the engineers to remind the corporate types that they shouldn't mistreat customers or forget their quirky roots.

    Google never intended their motto to mean that they would single handedly save the world, or even that none of their actions would have both pros and cons. People have unfortunately really latched onto this idea that Google claims to be saintly, and thus attack Google when any of their actions have a negative side.

    People are free to complain about the things companies do. But it irks me whenever people twist other people's words to make their point. And the constant misunderstanding of Google's motto is one example of this.

  18. Re:Can't See Comment Titles by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

    Same here, both on Minefield (native XP X64 Firefox) and on XP32 and Win2K. Also has this weird rendering error on all of the above where the little green bar right beside a persons name is now rendered skewed and above each post. Effect is on all of the above. Killed ABP and Noscript and I thought too that it was my router/ISP until I launched my oldest boys Opera and it seemed to work okay. Change that, Opera seems to fix the render bug but doesn't seem to fix the comment bug and loads the pages slower than it should. Whatever they did to the code must be REALLY nasty.

    --
    ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
  19. Re:Can't See Comment Titles by diamondsw · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Amen, Amen, Amen. Ever since the move to a modern codebase (which was desperately needed), Slashdot has been a huge bugfest. What happened to the open source ideal of people being able to jump in and rapidly respond to bugs? And if Slashcode isn't open in this way, then why the hell not?

    --
    I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
  20. Re:Can't See Comment Titles by sudden.zero · · Score: 1

    String rant = "I agree I too am seeing the white on White GNU/Missing Tag Monster when I am logged in so whome ever is assigned to this ticket needs to hurry up and fix it or give me access to the damn code and I will fix it myself!!!!";

    SendToTicketOwner(rant);

  21. Re:Nothing new by QuantumG · · Score: 1

    That's the problem with absolute concepts like "evil". While you consider data mining to be evil, clearly they don't.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
  22. libass? by Jim+Efaw · · Score: 4, Funny

    Pull your head out of your GNU/Ass and fix your fucking code.

    Gimme the source code for lib0ass. I wanna compile my own.

    ...I'm lonely

    Right here! On a sister site of Slashdot, no less!

  23. Change button? by mi · · Score: 1

    Click the "change" button near the top and the headers will magically appear.

    And what does the "Hope" button do?

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  24. "Can't See Comment Titles" is /. bug, not Firefox by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 1

    You reported the problem with FireFox 3.0.10 on Windows XP, but it looks like a /. issue, rather than a browser issue.
    The same behaviour is seen using Chromium 3.0.183.0, Epiphany 2.26.1, Firefox 3.0.10, Galeon 2.0.6, and Opera 9.64 (all running on Ubuntu 9.04). Comment titles are white when logged-in, but appear normal when not logged-in.

    --
    Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
  25. Re:Can't See Comment Titles by dzfoo · · Score: 1

    Thanks! That worked. Now that's change I can believ... uh, sorry.

            -dZ.

    --
    Carol vs. Ghost
    ...Can you save Christmas?
  26. Re:Nothing new by dzfoo · · Score: 1

    Ah, but as long as their motto is "Don't be evil", as opposed to "Don't do evil", there's no problem, and it can't even stand up in court.

    Google Attorney: Your honor, we all agree that data mining is evil, yes?
    Judge: I guess.
    Google Attorney: Yet, Google is much more than data mining, right?
    Judge: True, go on.
    Google Attorney: In fact, Google is not data mining.
    Judge: uh, ok.
    Google Attorney: I move to dismiss the charges, for Google is not data mining, ergo it is not evil.
    Judge: but you do data mining...
    Google Attorney: Yes, but we are not it.
    Judge: uh...

    Judge: But you are an advertising company.
    Google Attorney: Oh. well. uh...

          -dZ.

    --
    Carol vs. Ghost
    ...Can you save Christmas?
  27. Re:Can't See Comment Titles by Dan541 · · Score: 1

    Get Firefox!

    http://www.getfirefox.net/

    --
    An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
  28. Re:It's "Do No Evil", not "Don't Be Evil" by Red+Flayer · · Score: 2, Funny

    The motto is "Don't Be Evil," and is commonly misquoted as "Do No Evil."

    It's an important distinction, too... the first option allows for Evil acts (they just need to be outweighed by good acts -- the net outcome of all of Google's acts must be either neutral or good). The second option would severely hamper their ability to take over the word (or, worst-case-scenario, end the world, a la Googol the Destroyer).

    Personally, I think Google's motto should be "See all evil, Hear all evil, Use all evil data collected to sell complex targeted (evil) advertising schemes)".

    But something tells me that wouldn't fit well underneath a logo on a baseball cap.

    --
    "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai