I think the key thing to remember here is that this was most popular at a time when most people would go to bed around dusk due to the lack of available light. If you go to bed that early, it could well work to have segmented sleep. There's a lot of variables floating around when it comes to how to get 'a good night's sleep'. Calling bullshit just because being woken up during the night by your new puppy or baby makes you feel like crap seems a bit far fetched to me. There's so many other variables that are modified due to our modern lifestyle.
I have a strong suspicion this is a hoax. The wording just doesn't seem like something SOCA, or any other law enforcement agency would say in this situation. For a start, the statement "stolen from the artists" suggests they're already guilty. That's for a jury to decide. The statement regarding "damaged careers" really doesn't seem like something SOCA would say. It's not SOCA's place to say something like that, and strongly doubt they ever would. The link to pro-music.org seems to be pushing the agenda of the music business too. Why would SOCA endorse what is effectively a campaign to push the music industry's agenda? I'm really not convinced.
Indicentally, The Register has picked up the story. I hope they checked their facts first.
Who said he's been in jail for two years? The police only came across the USB drive in July 2011, and he's been sentenced today.
Is there any evidence this letter was actually mailed to anyone? emailed? anything?
Why does he need to have mailed the letter for it to be an indication of his mindset? What if it had been a diary and not a letter that he'd written? Don't forget there was also this "shopping list" that was found in his room (according to the Guardian). That seems to add to the idea that there was intent.
The police certainly aren't doing themselves any favours with this statement though:
"I also want to stress that this case is not about policing people's freedom to browse the Internet. The materials that were downloaded were not stumbled upon by chance - these had to be searched for and contained very dangerous information that could have led to an explosive device being built. That is why we had to take action."
I don't know about everyone else, but that really doesn't follow to me. Whether he actively seeked out the material or not, taking action on that basis alone is still "policing people's freedom to browse the internet" in my opinion.
I'm all for not limiting freedom of curiosity, but if you have a read of TFA, it says that along with the downloaded material, was a letter from a "24 year old man" (Asim Kauser is now 25), in which the writer states he "seeks spiritual guidance and says he has prepared himself physically and financially for jihad". It's not possible to say for sure without being in possession of all the facts & evidence, but on the face of it, that seems like it could add intent into the mix. Take that together with the "shopping list" they apparently found, and that changes things quite a bit. I'm no lawyer, and the article is a bit thin on detailed facts, but I'm guessing at some point the prosecution were able to convince a jury he was the author of those documents.
I'm not sure we're going to get very far, but here goes...
I think you're missing my point. For a start, these anti-competition complaints are largely related to organic search results, not ads.
I'm yet to see any evidence of that - despite the amazing coincidence of an inquiry taking place in the US at the same time as in Australia.
All I heard so far is people saying it happens - but failing to supply a shred of proof. So I call bullshit.
First the claim was that Google was giving paid advertising (like I buy) an unfair advantage over "organic search results"... In Australia, despite refusing to "prosecute" because they were unable to find an evidence to support the claim ACMA was still dragged to an Inquiry instigated by a company called Sensei (maybe you should do a little research and find out what happened there). Result - dismissed, as the "unfair" advantage is bullshit. The claim that by putting clearly marked, different coloured, ads at the top of search results - it was "unfair".
Now the story (like yours throughout this thread) has changed - and the distortion is hidden within the search results. Funny that the same people complaining that people game the search results and that Google benefits from it - now claim that when Google relegates the gamers off the front page (Rusty Compass and their 10s of thousands of spammy link farms backlinks) it's proof that Google is taking an "unfair advantage".
Yes, I'm aware of the history, but thanks for the lesson. Perhaps I need to spell out the fact that, "these anti-competition complaints" is referring to those mentioned in the links in the article. Believe me, the point I've been making hasn't changed since my original comment. Perhaps your interpretation is off. You're clearly convinced that you have me suss'd, so I doubt telling you you're way off would make much difference.
Secondly, I'm saying that abusing your position in one market to gain an unfair advantage in another is anti-competitive.
How? When? You make a lot of claims and keep lugging those goal posts round the field but so far you haven't pointed at a single fact. Having failed to demonstrate an abuse of the position in the market (third) you now want to build another case on it? There's a term for that - grasping.
That statement is so hypocritical. You keep quoting this apparent fact that Google is third in the search engine market. Practice what you preach. Perhaps if you dropped this rubbish about me having some sort of hidden motive to spout anti-Google FUD, then you'd be able to grasp the fact that it's not that I've failed to demonstrate an abuse, it's that I don't even suggest there is one! My original comment was predicated with "If true". You seem to believe that's being a weasel. You're entitled to your opinion, but it's also central to my point and you've chosen to gloss over that. I'm merely debating hypotheticals. Not pie in the sky hypotheticals, but ones that are relevant to current events and the original article. I happen to not have much of a view either way as to whether Google are abusing their market position. If anything, I doubt they are. My whole point has nothing to do with trying to say Google is being anti-competitive; it was in response to someone suggesting that it if competitors claims about Google giving prominence to their own products in organic search results were true, it was simple as "Wow, they're promoting their own products on their own website. That's hardly controversial." I disagree. If that's FUD, then I'll eat my hat.
That's not an unusual statement to make.
Relevance?
Fortunately, I'm under no obligation to meet your criteria for relevance in my own posts. I said it because you somehow seem to believe it IS an unusual statement to make.
I think you're missing my point. For a start, these anti-competition complaints are largely related to organic search results, not ads. Secondly, I'm saying that abusing your position in one market to gain an unfair advantage in another is anti-competitive. That's not an unusual statement to make. You may not see it that way, but to use the word "bullshit" in response just highlights your inability to have an intelligent debate in a respectful manner.
Thanks for keeping the standards high.
Wow, surely you're able to have an intelligent debate without resorting to troll like comments such as that. Do you say that to everyone who disagrees with you? Do you hear me calling your logic "bullshit"? I think you may need to take a look at your own standards.You may not agree with me, but that was totally unnecessary.
Simply saying "anti-competitive and therefore illegal" is at best lazy or ignorant, at worst shows contempt for real discussion and betrays desire to foster "controversy" for some other aim.
That's a little strong. Bordering on trolling if you ask me. I merely didn't think it was necessary to explain the link quite so explicitly.
How so? It's pointless to make such a statement without saying why. Merely offering other products seems entirely unproblematic under established competition law [wikipedia.org]. For example it seems to me there' no evidence of tying, anyone is free to choose which of Google's products they do or do not use. Similarly Google seems to steer well clear of other behaviours that could be problematic under competition law Google seems to steer well clear.
With respect, things are a little more complicated than can be understood from a Wikipedia article. Using your dominance in one market sector to in such a way as to give you an unfair advantage over competitors in another market sector is one of the main reasons competition law exists. If a company that runs a competing tool to one of Google's ancillary services needs to have their own market leading search engine to effectively compete with Google, then there's something wrong there that's ultimately detrimental to consumers if it's allowed to continue.
Maybe I should re-iterate the fact that my whole post was predicated with "If true". I made no mention of whether I believed Google were engaging in such practices.
"If it's true, of course it's controversial" -> it's their own website. They are free to promote or not promote whomever or whatever they life. They are a business...it would be like forcing McDonalds to show advertisements for Burger King.
Competition law exists because things really aren't that simple. In a capitalist society, healthy competition is what helps ensure prices are low and products are constantly improving. At some point, a company can do so well in one market sector (yes, usually because they've earned it), that they can use that leverage, if they so choose, to gain an unfair advantage in another market sector. Sure, there's a grey area, but there's limits. This is well established under monopoly and dominance provisions within competition law. Regarding your Burger King comment, I don't think anyone (certainly not me), was suggesting Google should be forced to unduly increase the prominence of their competitors. We're talking about organic search results here, not ads. The European Commission's concern centres around Google's supposed tactic of giving undue prominence to their services in organic search results. If they are doing so (and I'm not suggesting they necessarily are) then, to me, that clearly seems like an abuse of a dominant position in one sector to gain an unfair advantage in another. If a company that runs a competing tool to one of Google's ancillary services needs to have their own market leading search engine to effectively compete with Google, then there's something wrong there that's ultimately detrimental to consumers. That's why competition law exists.
they aren't the gate-keeper of all things. Yahoo, Bing, Baidu and so forth all offer competition.
My use of the phrase 'gate-keeper of all things internet' wasn't meant in quite such a literal sense. I was just referring to their dominant market share. Yes, there are competitors to Google (Bing, Yahoo, etc). That's fairly irrelevant to the issue we're discussing though. It's the fact Google are using their dominance in the search market to possibly gain an unfair market share in other areas.
If it's true, of course it's controversial; not to mention anti-competitive and therefore illegal. It's all about context. The vast majority of content on the internet is found via search engines. Google are the dominant player in the search engine market. Clearly, using their market position as the gate keeper of all things internet to push their plethora of other services is very anti-competitive and hugely controversial.
Yes, Google are producing Chrome because, either directly or indirectly, it advances the web as a platform. The thing is, they're only doing it because the web IS their platform. It's hugely advantageous to their business model that the web is a viable platform for their products in the years to come. What I object to, is Google trying to suggest that the ultimate reason for producing Chrome is anything but commercial. Don't get me wrong, I love Chrome and the impact it's having on the whole browser market, but they're not doing good just to be good.
@MrsStephenFry is possibly not the best example, since it's quite possible that it is, in fact, the great Mr Fry himself. He'd never admit it of course, since that would spoil the fun.
Unless you're intimately familiar with the tasks undertaken by GCHQ analysts such as the one this test is recruiting for, I think it's hard to say for sure whether the test was, in fact, good or bad. The thinking behind why some elements of the test were designed the way they were may not be immediately obvious. Having said that, I do wonder whether GCHQ would put their best minds to task working on devising a top rate recruitment puzzle. With the current international climate, combined the the current economic climate, I'd hazard a guess that their time is rather precious;)
If a company requires compliance with certain information security standards, then they should be checking these things prior to signing up. If it's not clear on their website, then a quick question sent to their sales staff should clear it up. If that doesn't clear it up, then I'd be concerned just because I'm not getting decent answers from their sales staff. I tend to contact sales staff and fire a bunch of questions at them anyway, just to get an initial idea of whether their service will be any good. If their sales staff know their stuff, then there's a chance the support staff might too. A good pre-sales experience doesn't necessarily mean post-purchase service will be up to scratch, but if they're poor at answering my pre-sales questions, then that usually means they're crossed off my list.
I don't know what the point in releasing these quotes is now though
Money. His autobiography goes on sale on Monday. Nothing like a few controversial quotes to stir up some hype and get people queuing like they're waiting to buy an iPhone 4S.
Usually I'd attempt to explain why an article is just a load of rubbish from someone who doesn't know what they're talking about, but today I think I'll just leave it at that. Come on Slashdot!
You completely missed my point. Yes, it's starting to head downward, but do you really believe that > 40% is just power users and their buddies? That was the original claim and the one I was responding to. Perhaps my use of the word 'momentum' in that context was a bad idea. My point was that Firefox has gained a following amongst your average internet users, and a figure of > 40% reflects that.
My previous posts base their whole argument around the fact that Firefox's usage is on a downward trend, so what's your point?
And as for giving enterprise the middle finger... Did you not see my link regarding extended support releases? Maybe a temporary middle finger at best. They had to make some hard decisions regarding priority to get things sorted, and quick. It's refreshing to see a company brave enough to take big decisions like that.
I'd have to disagree. Firefox has reached a level of penetration beyond it being used by power users and their friends and family. It has a momentum of it's own. The figures for Firefox usage alone tell you that. I have loads of friends who use Firefox on recommendation from a friend who wasn't a power user. Sure, the seeds were sewn by power users, but the recommendation is third or fourth hand now. It's got to the point where a lot of people use it because it's 'cool'. 'Oh yeah, don't use that Internet Explorer, it's rubbish. Use Firefox.' Half these people don't even know why it's 'better', they're just following the fashion. The actual reasons for switching have been lost somewhere along the chain. It's the sheep principle in action.
This idea that there's either power users or 'grandma' is silly. It's not 'grandma', it's everyone, of any age, that wants to use a computer as a tool and not as an intellectual pursuit. If Firefox wishes to maintain it's market share, it's these people it needs to please, and that means taking some cues from Chrome. Power users are _not_ Firefox's core market anymore. That was a long time ago.
I'm a power user and I haven't been chased away. Besides, I think a lot of people on here need to be realistic. Sorry, but Mozilla doesn't care about you as much as they do the average non-techie user.
It may have been a controversial decision, but IMHO a brave and necessary one for Firefox's long term survival. Mozilla are keenly aware that they've been outdone in a number of areas by Chrome. Their market share is decreasing and it'll take time to slow the momentum even if they come out with some big improvements. Their old release cycle could well have meant the improvements needed to bring Firefox back into the game would have been too late. Firefox wasn't ready for the switch, unlike Chrome that was built from the ground up with rapid release in mind. Trouble is, I don't think they could afford to wait until it was. My guess is that Mozilla were well aware that the new rapid release cycle would (a) cause people pain when it comes to outdated extensions, and (b) annoy enterprise IT departments. They just saw what great things Chrome are doing, together with their falling market share, and decided that the couldn't afford to wait until they could solve these problems before moving to a rapid release cycle. Enterprise users and users with lots of extensions are in the minority when it comes to Firefox. There's no doubt in my mind that a browser with a slow release cycle is going to loose out to a browser like Chrome in the long term, all other things being equal. Remember I'm talking mainstream here. Not enterprise users, or geeks.
Yes, the regular update cycles are going to piss of a few enterprise types for obvious and very valid reasons. But let's face it, the enterprise is definitely not Firefox's core market. Faced with having to make some tough decisions in an attempt to ensure Firefox's survival, enterprise users were put to one side. The right decision in my opinion bearing in mind the urgency implied by falling market share. However, Mozilla is hearing enterprise concerns and is proposing what they would call 'Extended Support Releases,' which are basically the same concept as Ubuntu's LTS (Long Term Support) releases. See https://wiki.mozilla.org/Enterprise/Firefox/ExtendedSupport:Proposal for details. I've thought this was a good idea since the start, and I have a feeling Mozilla knew all along was something they were eventually going to have to do.
Mozilla have said they're well aware of the incompatible extensions issue and plan to get on top of it. I also get the impression they want to follow Chrome in hiding version info and pushing out updates without any user intervention. Both in my opinion important if you want to have a rapid release cycle without seriously annoying users. For the vast majority of users, I think pushing updates without confirmation is a good thing. Most people really don't care about having maximum control over exactly what gets installed on their machine. They just want something that works well and stays secure. Trouble is they don't appreciate that means regular updates. Much better to do it for them in my opinion.
Confirmation of the results of an experiment by an independent party is standard practice in the scientific community. Without it, the findings wouldn't even be considered completely valid! Nothing to see here...
Slashdot Mirror
I think the key thing to remember here is that this was most popular at a time when most people would go to bed around dusk due to the lack of available light. If you go to bed that early, it could well work to have segmented sleep. There's a lot of variables floating around when it comes to how to get 'a good night's sleep'. Calling bullshit just because being woken up during the night by your new puppy or baby makes you feel like crap seems a bit far fetched to me. There's so many other variables that are modified due to our modern lifestyle.
I have a strong suspicion this is a hoax. The wording just doesn't seem like something SOCA, or any other law enforcement agency would say in this situation. For a start, the statement "stolen from the artists" suggests they're already guilty. That's for a jury to decide. The statement regarding "damaged careers" really doesn't seem like something SOCA would say. It's not SOCA's place to say something like that, and strongly doubt they ever would. The link to pro-music.org seems to be pushing the agenda of the music business too. Why would SOCA endorse what is effectively a campaign to push the music industry's agenda? I'm really not convinced.
Indicentally, The Register has picked up the story. I hope they checked their facts first.
So, since he's been in jail for two years
Who said he's been in jail for two years? The police only came across the USB drive in July 2011, and he's been sentenced today.
Is there any evidence this letter was actually mailed to anyone? emailed? anything?
Why does he need to have mailed the letter for it to be an indication of his mindset? What if it had been a diary and not a letter that he'd written? Don't forget there was also this "shopping list" that was found in his room (according to the Guardian). That seems to add to the idea that there was intent.
The police certainly aren't doing themselves any favours with this statement though:
"I also want to stress that this case is not about policing people's freedom to browse the Internet. The materials that were downloaded were not stumbled upon by chance - these had to be searched for and contained very dangerous information that could have led to an explosive device being built. That is why we had to take action."
I don't know about everyone else, but that really doesn't follow to me. Whether he actively seeked out the material or not, taking action on that basis alone is still "policing people's freedom to browse the internet" in my opinion.
I'm all for not limiting freedom of curiosity, but if you have a read of TFA, it says that along with the downloaded material, was a letter from a "24 year old man" (Asim Kauser is now 25), in which the writer states he "seeks spiritual guidance and says he has prepared himself physically and financially for jihad". It's not possible to say for sure without being in possession of all the facts & evidence, but on the face of it, that seems like it could add intent into the mix. Take that together with the "shopping list" they apparently found, and that changes things quite a bit. I'm no lawyer, and the article is a bit thin on detailed facts, but I'm guessing at some point the prosecution were able to convince a jury he was the author of those documents.
I'm not sure we're going to get very far, but here goes...
I think you're missing my point. For a start, these anti-competition complaints are largely related to organic search results, not ads.
I'm yet to see any evidence of that - despite the amazing coincidence of an inquiry taking place in the US at the same time as in Australia.
All I heard so far is people saying it happens - but failing to supply a shred of proof. So I call bullshit.
First the claim was that Google was giving paid advertising (like I buy) an unfair advantage over "organic search results"... In Australia, despite refusing to "prosecute" because they were unable to find an evidence to support the claim ACMA was still dragged to an Inquiry instigated by a company called Sensei (maybe you should do a little research and find out what happened there). Result - dismissed, as the "unfair" advantage is bullshit. The claim that by putting clearly marked, different coloured, ads at the top of search results - it was "unfair".
Now the story (like yours throughout this thread) has changed - and the distortion is hidden within the search results. Funny that the same people complaining that people game the search results and that Google benefits from it - now claim that when Google relegates the gamers off the front page (Rusty Compass and their 10s of thousands of spammy link farms backlinks) it's proof that Google is taking an "unfair advantage".
Yes, I'm aware of the history, but thanks for the lesson. Perhaps I need to spell out the fact that, "these anti-competition complaints" is referring to those mentioned in the links in the article. Believe me, the point I've been making hasn't changed since my original comment. Perhaps your interpretation is off. You're clearly convinced that you have me suss'd, so I doubt telling you you're way off would make much difference.
Secondly, I'm saying that abusing your position in one market to gain an unfair advantage in another is anti-competitive.
How? When? You make a lot of claims and keep lugging those goal posts round the field but so far you haven't pointed at a single fact. Having failed to demonstrate an abuse of the position in the market (third) you now want to build another case on it? There's a term for that - grasping.
That statement is so hypocritical. You keep quoting this apparent fact that Google is third in the search engine market. Practice what you preach. Perhaps if you dropped this rubbish about me having some sort of hidden motive to spout anti-Google FUD, then you'd be able to grasp the fact that it's not that I've failed to demonstrate an abuse, it's that I don't even suggest there is one! My original comment was predicated with "If true". You seem to believe that's being a weasel. You're entitled to your opinion, but it's also central to my point and you've chosen to gloss over that. I'm merely debating hypotheticals. Not pie in the sky hypotheticals, but ones that are relevant to current events and the original article. I happen to not have much of a view either way as to whether Google are abusing their market position. If anything, I doubt they are. My whole point has nothing to do with trying to say Google is being anti-competitive; it was in response to someone suggesting that it if competitors claims about Google giving prominence to their own products in organic search results were true, it was simple as "Wow, they're promoting their own products on their own website. That's hardly controversial." I disagree. If that's FUD, then I'll eat my hat.
That's not an unusual statement to make.
Relevance?
Fortunately, I'm under no obligation to meet your criteria for relevance in my own posts. I said it because you somehow seem to believe it IS an unusual statement to make.
You may not see
Thanks for keeping the standards high.
Wow, surely you're able to have an intelligent debate without resorting to troll like comments such as that. Do you say that to everyone who disagrees with you? Do you hear me calling your logic "bullshit"? I think you may need to take a look at your own standards.You may not agree with me, but that was totally unnecessary.
Simply saying "anti-competitive and therefore illegal" is at best lazy or ignorant, at worst shows contempt for real discussion and betrays desire to foster "controversy" for some other aim.
That's a little strong. Bordering on trolling if you ask me. I merely didn't think it was necessary to explain the link quite so explicitly.
How so? It's pointless to make such a statement without saying why. Merely offering other products seems entirely unproblematic under established competition law [wikipedia.org]. For example it seems to me there' no evidence of tying, anyone is free to choose which of Google's products they do or do not use. Similarly Google seems to steer well clear of other behaviours that could be problematic under competition law Google seems to steer well clear.
With respect, things are a little more complicated than can be understood from a Wikipedia article. Using your dominance in one market sector to in such a way as to give you an unfair advantage over competitors in another market sector is one of the main reasons competition law exists. If a company that runs a competing tool to one of Google's ancillary services needs to have their own market leading search engine to effectively compete with Google, then there's something wrong there that's ultimately detrimental to consumers if it's allowed to continue.
Maybe I should re-iterate the fact that my whole post was predicated with "If true". I made no mention of whether I believed Google were engaging in such practices.
"If it's true, of course it's controversial" -> it's their own website. They are free to promote or not promote whomever or whatever they life. They are a business...it would be like forcing McDonalds to show advertisements for Burger King.
Competition law exists because things really aren't that simple. In a capitalist society, healthy competition is what helps ensure prices are low and products are constantly improving. At some point, a company can do so well in one market sector (yes, usually because they've earned it), that they can use that leverage, if they so choose, to gain an unfair advantage in another market sector. Sure, there's a grey area, but there's limits. This is well established under monopoly and dominance provisions within competition law. Regarding your Burger King comment, I don't think anyone (certainly not me), was suggesting Google should be forced to unduly increase the prominence of their competitors. We're talking about organic search results here, not ads. The European Commission's concern centres around Google's supposed tactic of giving undue prominence to their services in organic search results. If they are doing so (and I'm not suggesting they necessarily are) then, to me, that clearly seems like an abuse of a dominant position in one sector to gain an unfair advantage in another. If a company that runs a competing tool to one of Google's ancillary services needs to have their own market leading search engine to effectively compete with Google, then there's something wrong there that's ultimately detrimental to consumers. That's why competition law exists.
they aren't the gate-keeper of all things. Yahoo, Bing, Baidu and so forth all offer competition.
My use of the phrase 'gate-keeper of all things internet' wasn't meant in quite such a literal sense. I was just referring to their dominant market share. Yes, there are competitors to Google (Bing, Yahoo, etc). That's fairly irrelevant to the issue we're discussing though. It's the fact Google are using their dominance in the search market to possibly gain an unfair market share in other areas.
If it's true, of course it's controversial; not to mention anti-competitive and therefore illegal. It's all about context. The vast majority of content on the internet is found via search engines. Google are the dominant player in the search engine market. Clearly, using their market position as the gate keeper of all things internet to push their plethora of other services is very anti-competitive and hugely controversial.
Yes, Google are producing Chrome because, either directly or indirectly, it advances the web as a platform. The thing is, they're only doing it because the web IS their platform. It's hugely advantageous to their business model that the web is a viable platform for their products in the years to come. What I object to, is Google trying to suggest that the ultimate reason for producing Chrome is anything but commercial. Don't get me wrong, I love Chrome and the impact it's having on the whole browser market, but they're not doing good just to be good.
@MrsStephenFry is possibly not the best example, since it's quite possible that it is, in fact, the great Mr Fry himself. He'd never admit it of course, since that would spoil the fun.
Does this mean I'll get arrested from now on for cheating people out of money when playing Monopoly?
Unless you're intimately familiar with the tasks undertaken by GCHQ analysts such as the one this test is recruiting for, I think it's hard to say for sure whether the test was, in fact, good or bad. The thinking behind why some elements of the test were designed the way they were may not be immediately obvious. Having said that, I do wonder whether GCHQ would put their best minds to task working on devising a top rate recruitment puzzle. With the current international climate, combined the the current economic climate, I'd hazard a guess that their time is rather precious ;)
If a company requires compliance with certain information security standards, then they should be checking these things prior to signing up. If it's not clear on their website, then a quick question sent to their sales staff should clear it up. If that doesn't clear it up, then I'd be concerned just because I'm not getting decent answers from their sales staff. I tend to contact sales staff and fire a bunch of questions at them anyway, just to get an initial idea of whether their service will be any good. If their sales staff know their stuff, then there's a chance the support staff might too. A good pre-sales experience doesn't necessarily mean post-purchase service will be up to scratch, but if they're poor at answering my pre-sales questions, then that usually means they're crossed off my list.
I don't know what the point in releasing these quotes is now though
Money. His autobiography goes on sale on Monday. Nothing like a few controversial quotes to stir up some hype and get people queuing like they're waiting to buy an iPhone 4S.
Usually I'd attempt to explain why an article is just a load of rubbish from someone who doesn't know what they're talking about, but today I think I'll just leave it at that. Come on Slashdot!
You completely missed my point. Yes, it's starting to head downward, but do you really believe that > 40% is just power users and their buddies? That was the original claim and the one I was responding to. Perhaps my use of the word 'momentum' in that context was a bad idea. My point was that Firefox has gained a following amongst your average internet users, and a figure of > 40% reflects that. My previous posts base their whole argument around the fact that Firefox's usage is on a downward trend, so what's your point?
And as for giving enterprise the middle finger... Did you not see my link regarding extended support releases? Maybe a temporary middle finger at best. They had to make some hard decisions regarding priority to get things sorted, and quick. It's refreshing to see a company brave enough to take big decisions like that.
I'd have to disagree. Firefox has reached a level of penetration beyond it being used by power users and their friends and family. It has a momentum of it's own. The figures for Firefox usage alone tell you that. I have loads of friends who use Firefox on recommendation from a friend who wasn't a power user. Sure, the seeds were sewn by power users, but the recommendation is third or fourth hand now. It's got to the point where a lot of people use it because it's 'cool'. 'Oh yeah, don't use that Internet Explorer, it's rubbish. Use Firefox.' Half these people don't even know why it's 'better', they're just following the fashion. The actual reasons for switching have been lost somewhere along the chain. It's the sheep principle in action.
This idea that there's either power users or 'grandma' is silly. It's not 'grandma', it's everyone, of any age, that wants to use a computer as a tool and not as an intellectual pursuit. If Firefox wishes to maintain it's market share, it's these people it needs to please, and that means taking some cues from Chrome. Power users are _not_ Firefox's core market anymore. That was a long time ago.
I'm a power user and I haven't been chased away. Besides, I think a lot of people on here need to be realistic. Sorry, but Mozilla doesn't care about you as much as they do the average non-techie user.
It may have been a controversial decision, but IMHO a brave and necessary one for Firefox's long term survival. Mozilla are keenly aware that they've been outdone in a number of areas by Chrome. Their market share is decreasing and it'll take time to slow the momentum even if they come out with some big improvements. Their old release cycle could well have meant the improvements needed to bring Firefox back into the game would have been too late. Firefox wasn't ready for the switch, unlike Chrome that was built from the ground up with rapid release in mind. Trouble is, I don't think they could afford to wait until it was. My guess is that Mozilla were well aware that the new rapid release cycle would (a) cause people pain when it comes to outdated extensions, and (b) annoy enterprise IT departments. They just saw what great things Chrome are doing, together with their falling market share, and decided that the couldn't afford to wait until they could solve these problems before moving to a rapid release cycle. Enterprise users and users with lots of extensions are in the minority when it comes to Firefox. There's no doubt in my mind that a browser with a slow release cycle is going to loose out to a browser like Chrome in the long term, all other things being equal. Remember I'm talking mainstream here. Not enterprise users, or geeks.
Yes, the regular update cycles are going to piss of a few enterprise types for obvious and very valid reasons. But let's face it, the enterprise is definitely not Firefox's core market. Faced with having to make some tough decisions in an attempt to ensure Firefox's survival, enterprise users were put to one side. The right decision in my opinion bearing in mind the urgency implied by falling market share. However, Mozilla is hearing enterprise concerns and is proposing what they would call 'Extended Support Releases,' which are basically the same concept as Ubuntu's LTS (Long Term Support) releases. See https://wiki.mozilla.org/Enterprise/Firefox/ExtendedSupport:Proposal for details. I've thought this was a good idea since the start, and I have a feeling Mozilla knew all along was something they were eventually going to have to do.
Mozilla have said they're well aware of the incompatible extensions issue and plan to get on top of it. I also get the impression they want to follow Chrome in hiding version info and pushing out updates without any user intervention. Both in my opinion important if you want to have a rapid release cycle without seriously annoying users. For the vast majority of users, I think pushing updates without confirmation is a good thing. Most people really don't care about having maximum control over exactly what gets installed on their machine. They just want something that works well and stays secure. Trouble is they don't appreciate that means regular updates. Much better to do it for them in my opinion.
I wouldn't call 'pre-alpha', 'almost a reality'.
Confirmation of the results of an experiment by an independent party is standard practice in the scientific community. Without it, the findings wouldn't even be considered completely valid! Nothing to see here...
You have 2500 'friends'? Do you know them all by name?