Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mozilla Ditches Firefox's New-Tab Monetization Plans

Posted by Soulskill on from the benefits-of-asking-for-feedback dept.

hypnosec writes "Mozilla has ditched Firefox's new-tab monetization plans because they 'didn't go over well' with the community. Johnathan Nightingale, Mozilla's VP of Firefox, said much of Firefox's community was worried Mozilla would 'turn Firefox into a mess of logos sold to the highest bidder' and that users wouldn't have control over this or see any actual benefit. 'That's not going to happen. That's not who we are at Mozilla.'"

6 of 195 comments (clear)

  1. Re:That's not who we are at Mozilla by Hsien-Ko · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Seamonkey exists, has always been the last designbycommittee-bullshit-free Gecko-based browser for over a decade, but it always feels so unloved.

  2. Re:I ditched Firefox 'cause they're intolerant big by Nidi62 · · Score: 5, Funny

    And I'll never use it again.

    Now who's being intolerant?

    --
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
  3. Re:That's not who we are at Mozilla by koan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You can have a "default" just give the user a choice, if they want to use it or not.
    That's my thing really, so tired of updates on my phone and computers that don't take how the user feels into consideration.
    A perfect example is Windows 8, another would be Unity.
    Let me leave my GUI the way it is while still getting security updates and feature sets (other than GUI features obviously) give *ME* the choice.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  4. Re:I ditched Firefox 'cause they're intolerant big by Microlith · · Score: 5, Insightful

    for not having the "correct" beliefs*

    More importantly, for contributing $1000 to a political campaign in favor of an amendment that explicitly attacked a segment of the populace, on top of repeatedly (and publicly) supporting congressmen who regularly express bigoted attitudes towards homosexuals. So yeah, he was given the lead position on Mozilla and people flipped their shit because he backed politicians that spew bullshit to demonize them.

    when someone objects or defends his right to an opinion, he, too, is "intolerant"

    No, this is the old "you must be tolerant of my intolerance" nonsense. No one has to sit back and accept being walked over, particularly when the basis for it is entirely hollow.

    Scratch a liberal or "advocacy group" and you see the same rotten core you saw in 1933.

    Wait, what? Is this an indirect Godwin?

    And the terrible crime here is that the man contributed to a *successful* change to the CA constitution

    What does it having been successful have to do with anything?

    after a previous *successful* propostion to the same effect was defeated by the same pack of "tolerance" bullies?

    What are you referring to?

  5. Re:That's not who we are at Mozilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The point is that Mozilla can't operate for free. If they could they would. If donations were enough to sustain them, why would they care? But the browser world is such that not even Opera could maintain their own browser engine, and they weren't a non-profit. Nobody seems to give a shit about Mozilla's needs, only their own. And when you dare to mention that, you're the bad guy for playing into the idea that "browsers cost money" and that "Mozilla should be trying harder to make money that everyone agrees is from ideologically flawless sources". And the worst part? The same users wouldn't donate to the cause if they had to, because they're too damn selfish and upset about tiny UI changes and bogeymen they think they're successfully evading by running Tor and NoScript.

    In this kind of environment, you're guaranteed to get a Firefox that spends more time trying to find out how to make money than a Firefox that can fix its bugs and please everyone. You do it to yourself, Firefox users. That's why the vocal minority is beginning to be rejected with some things, and why the userbase is fragmenting and losing the more obnoxiously selfish users to forks that would go under the instant Mozilla went under.

  6. More about Pale Moon by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 5, Informative

    The Pale Moon browser is a better version of Firefox. Pale Moon appears to have better management than the Mozilla Foundation gives Firefox.

    Pale Moon Windows version
    Pale Moon Linux version

    Here are some of the advantages:

    1) Pale Moon has a 64-bit version. Firefox doesn't. The 64-bit Pale Moon uses the Firefox add-ons; there are no problems except with some unusual add-ons.

    2) The "Find in page" is better in Pale Moon. In Firefox the "Find in page" field is on the left of the screen and the "Highlight All" and "Match Case" buttons are on the right. In Pale Moon they are together so that you immediately see if something is chosen from a former search.

    3) Pale Moon has backup software. Firefox has only Mozbackup, which works well, but isn't Mozilla Foundation software.

    4) Pale Moon is said to be more stable than Firefox. The memory-hogging flaws in Firefox are so widely acknowledged that there are add-ons for re-starting Firefox: Firefox Re-start Add-ons. I use Restartless Restart.

    5) Pale Moon is completely independent of the forces that guide Firefox. Pale Moon is in no way associated with Mozilla Foundation. The Mozilla Foundation seems to feel forced to change Firefox in ways most users don't want.

    Migration tool: Pale Moon has a profile migration tool.