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

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."

Comments

Bulldozer

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Sometimes it's best to make your own news.

Love that statement

[jfbilodeau]

"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."

Re:Love that statement

[K. S. Kyosuke]

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

Re:Yay for bullshitting ourselves

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Fear of the computer

[goldaryn]

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..

Re:Fear of the computer

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Fear of the computer

[goldaryn]

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.

Re:Fear of the computer

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

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.

Re:Fear of the computer

[goldaryn]

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.

Re:Fear of the computer

[retchdog]

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...

Re:Fear of the computer

[TheLink]

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).

not very interesting

[bcrowell]

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.

Re:Can't See Comment Titles

[nausea_malvarma]

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

Put honest links in the @#$@ summary

[randomchicagomac]

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).

Re:Put honest links in the @#$@ summary

[nametaken]

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

Re:Can't See Comment Titles

[mahaman]

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...

Re:Can't See Comment Titles

[donatzsky]

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.

Re:Can't See Comment Titles

[Fusen]

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

Hair...

[RobDollar]

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?

Re:Can't See Comment Titles

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

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".

Re:It's "Do No Evil", not "Don't Be Evil"

[Silent Objection]

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

Re:It's "Do No Evil", not "Don't Be Evil"

[Alascom]

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.

Re:It's "Do No Evil", not "Don't Be Evil"

[JustinOpinion]

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.

Re:Can't See Comment Titles

[diamondsw]

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?

libass?

[Jim Efaw]

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!

Re:It's "Do No Evil", not "Don't Be Evil"

[Red Flayer]

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.