Slashdot Mirror
Google and Mozilla: Partners, Not Competitors
Much has been said about the (perceived) rivalry between Chrome and Firefox, but Google engineer Peter Kasting had enough when he read an article trying to discern Google's true motives for signing a new Firefox search deal. Kasting posted to Google+ to clarify what value the company sees in funding a "rival" browser. Quoting:
"People never seem to understand why Google builds Chrome no matter how many times I try to pound it into their heads. It's very simple: the primary goal of Chrome is to make the web advance as much and as quickly as possible. That's it. It's completely irrelevant to this goal whether Chrome actually gains tons of users or whether instead the web advances because the other browser vendors step up their game and produce far better browsers. Either way the web gets better. Job done. The end. So it's very easy to see why Google would be willing to fund Mozilla: Like Google, Mozilla is clearly committed to the betterment of the web, and they're spending their resources to make a great, open-source web browser. Chrome is not all things to all people; Firefox is an important product because it can be a different product with different design decisions and serve different users well."
Google does need other browsers too, mainly for antitrust issues. They're already being investigated for monopoly abuse in EU and U.S. senators are suggesting that FDC looks into Google's monopoly abuse in U.S. too. EU just recently postponed Google's purchase of Motorola Mobility and may even deny it completely. They have been abusing advertisers on their network by telling that they are not allowed to run same ads on competitors networks. They have a monopoly on internet advertising, and that is the point many are missing. Their antitrust issues aren't about people using Google for searching, but abusing advertisers and other ad networks. After all, Google's customers aren't users - they are merely the product they sell.
Google cannot handle any more antitrust issues than they currently have.
Ah the wonders of the African Nigger. It's the ultimate "black" box! Welfare money goes in and crime comes out. What happens to turn welfare money into crime (and not gratitude) is the mystery.
For all their whining and crying about "racism" black-on-black crime is MUCH higher than white-on-black crime has ever been. They must breed very quickly to keep up with how fast they shoot each other. This is why so many are fatherless. They would have to breed much more slowly if each nigger father actually took the time to raise his nigger bastard kids. A nigger buck can impregnate another nigger hoe before the first one has given birth. This policy means reduced quality of niggers since they're all bastards but it increases the quantity of niggers to offset the vast numbers of niggers who shoot each other due to nigger gang violence.
What I want to know is: if niggers weren't such criminals (ahahaha no really just humor me) and knew what birth control was (ditto) and didn't ever use welfare then what would our economy look like today? I mean keeping criminals in jail is truly expensive. So is welfare. Oh and let's settle this one, unemployment works on the model of insurance but except for that ANY money you get from the government is welfare it is not just WIC or food stamps. So without niggers I think we'd be much better off.
Ok now go back to feeling sorry for them and telling yourself what a bad person I must be etc etc emotional appeals blah blah pull the wool over your eyes yadda yadda try fucking THINKING just for once and not shutting down just because it's a touchy subject and you react to the word "nigger" like a two-year-old who had his toy taken away.
What we need is stability, we need less versions (preferrably one per year or even less than that).
http://in-other-news.com/2011/The_problem_with_Firefox_and_how_it_could_be_fixed
Continues to l0se become an unwanted