Slashdot Mirror


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."

13 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.

  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.
  3. 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 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.

    3. 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
  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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?

  7. 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

  8. 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.

  9. 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!