"The reasons for this decision are well documented..."
That is a common mistake. Mozilla Foundation "documented" the changes in a way only people who were both technically knowledgeable and had time to give attention to that particular technology subject would understand.
You are satisfied with what was communicated. That is good, but not what is needed. Overall, the public needs to understand all the issues concerning browsers. In fact, the issues are largely hidden.
You said, "Your moderation was well deserved."
My comment to which you are replying was not moderated down. My parent comment was moderated down.
My parent comment contains what I consider to be EXTREMELY important issues. Internet browsers are now an important, necessary part of human culture. We need to understand if there are unacceptable influences. For example, years ago, Microsoft's Internet Explorer version 6 did not implement world-wide standards. IE6 caused a huge number of problems because those with no technical knowledge would use it, not realizing the difficulties for web site developers.
We don't know why Mozilla Foundation has changed from accepting money from Microsoft to accepting money from Google. We are, apparently, not allowed to know. One possibility is that Google is willing to pay more. Another possibility is that there was a breakdown in the relationship between the very poorly managed Yahoo and Microsoft. (Although poorly managed, one reason Yahoo has money is that Yahoo is part owner of Alibaba. See, for example, Why worthless CEOs laugh all the way to the bank. May 20, 2017)
During the time the money from Microsoft dominated Mozilla Foundation's income, Mozilla Foundation released a version of Firefox that removed the ability to use most add-ons. Add-ons are the reason people prefer Firefox. We aren't allowed to kinow why Mozilla Foundation makes its decisions.
During the time that Microsoft dominated, Mozilla Foundation changed the Firefox user interface in a way that had a negative influence on acceptance of Firefox.
That is, in fact, what happened, according to news reports at links I gave.
Other people who have commented and I feel uncomfortable with the fact that we aren't allowed to know how Mozilla Foundation spends its money.
The world needs a browser that is not controlled in a hidden way. At one time, I thought we had that. When Google was paying $300,000,000 per year to Mozilla Foundation, to make Google search the default Firefox search engine. it appeared that Google was not negatively influencing the development of Firefox. Of course, we don't know what actually happened.
The article is poorly edited: "Expenses grew too, but not as much, from $361 million to $337 million...". The numbers should be reversed. When the editing is that sloppy, can we depend on other information being accurate?
Also, the article does not tell the full story. For example: "Mozilla in 2014 signed a major five-year deal with Yahoo to be the default search engine in the US, but canceled it only three years in and moved back to Google instead in November."
During that 3 years, Mozilla was dominated by Microsoft. Microsoft paid Yahoo to use Microsoft's Bing search. Yahoo paid Mozilla Foundation to make Firefox browser use "Yahoo Search", which was actually Microsoft Bing search.
A repost of part of a previous comment:
The browser situation is very, very ugly. Firefox is now, basically, owned by Microsoft, who is apparently trying to destroy it. In the past, Google paid Mozilla Foundation $300 million each year (December 22, 2011) to make Google search the default search engine in Firefox. Google apparently didn't cause problems in the design of Firefox, even though it paid a shocking amount.
Now, I understand, Mozilla Foundation gets most of its money from Microsoft: Microsoft pays Yahoo. Yahoo pays Mozilla Foundation to make "Yahoo search" (actually mostly Microsoft Bing search) (April 16, 2015) the default search engine in Firefox.
The Thunderbird and SeaMonkey Composer GUIs have been damaged in several ways, apparently deliberately. For example, file saves in the newer versions of both ask for a new file name, and don't suggest the last one chosen. The damage was reported several months ago, but has not been fixed.
Mozilla Foundation said it will no longer improve the Thunderbird email client. Is that because Microsoft wants more customers for Microsoft products like Outlook? Is that another example of Microsoft's Embrace, Extend, Extinguish? People who feel forced away from Thunderbird may choose Microsoft software to replace it. Is that something Microsoft is trying to accomplish?
We are seeing technology companies that are shockingly badly managed. Why is that happening? Are we experiencing a general social breakdown?
One small but indicative example: On the Mozilla Foundation Download Firefox in your language web page the 32-bit and 64-bit versions have the same file name!
Mozilla Foundation could be far better at communicating with users. Basically, however, Mozilla Foundation does what big corporations want, apparently. Now that Google is paying Microsoft huge amounts again, will the Firefox browser continue to improve in some ways, but continue to be degraded in others, as in losing important add-ons?
A long time ago, I tried the Google Chrome browser. It installed 3 system services. Google had more control over my computer than me as a limited user!!
In my view, the 3 years of Microsoft paying Mozilla Foundation were 3 years of destructiveness in numerous ways.
Should a United Nations agency demand that browsers not be abusive? That is a world-class goal.
Yes, but the problem is NOT solved. The underlying problem is that the U.S. has become an abusive society. For example, hiring Ajit Pai to stop net neutrality. He has a conflict of interest.
She does not have the fascination with technology that other Slashdot readers and I often have.
I'm also fascinated with women. A long time ago, after a long conversation with a woman, I said, "I seem to be more interested in you than you are." She said, "Maybe you're right!"
Being fascinated with technology doesn't stop fascination with humans.
This is the actual opinion article by the actual publisher, Bloomberg Businessweek:
The Internet Had Already Lost Its Neutrality (Nov. 21, 2017) Why did Slashdot link to the same article in The Japan Times?
There are at least 2 separate issues: 1) Neutrality of speed and access of delivery of digital internet information, and 2) "Neutrality" of what people communicate. That 2nd issue is a very old one. Before the year 313 CE (Common Era), people could be killed for being Christian. After the year 313 CE, people could be killed for NOT being Christian.
Notice that, in the article about internet neutrality, Megan McArdle calls President Trump the "genital-grabber-in-chief". Is there beginning to be a world-wide understanding that President Trump is not mentally capable of being a leader? Apparently that idea has been adopted by the Japan Times.
The underlying problem? Try number 2. Downloading a list and warning users of contacting any site on that list may be a good idea. But that should not be a browser function, it should be an operating system function. There should be a warning any time a computer tries to connect to an unsafe site, for any reason, not just because of browsing.
The Slashdot summary and the stories linked in the summary don't mention that Mozilla is apparently merely copying the Google Chrome browser: Manage warnings about unsafe sites.
My initial reaction was incorrect partly because of poor communication. I didn't understand what was being reported.
"When... did asking questions become something to belittle people over?"
I wish the managers of Slashdot would do something about the people who act out their anger toward Slashdot readers. It's not good for the angry people, and it makes reading Slashdot less pleasant.
Even if Firefox only downloads a list, it is still giving information about your activity to another web site.
The underlying problem? One problem that the management of mozilla.org has is being very poor at communicating. It is common that technically-knowledgeable people don't communicate well. It is common that even people who are especially socially capable make mistakes by communicating in a flawed way.
Another example of poor communication: Mozilla.org management did not handle communicating the move to Firefox 57 well. People use Firefox because of the availability of add-ons, also known as extensions. (Communicate carefully: Don't give 1 thing 2 names.) Preventing use of most add-ons without a careful public explanation tended to cause people to lose confidence in Mozilla.org and begin using Waterfox or Pale Moon browsers.
Quote: "As the U.S. healthcare system slips further into the cellar of metrics for quality and outcomes among the advanced nations of the world, and does it at more than twice the average per capita cost,..."
What about Joshua Topolsky's article, Apple is really bad at design (Sept. 29, 2017) is not correct, in your opinion? What other stories to which I linked are not correct?
Topolsky's article in 2013 also seems reasonable to me: The design of iOS 7: simply confusing (June 10, 2013)
There are 2 issues: The underlying facts, and what people think. It is now easy to find articles that talk about Apple not managing well, about Apple being sloppy. Even if those articles are not grounded in reality, they have an effect on Apple's reputation. A socially-capable CEO who is knowledgeable about professional communication minimizes the problems that cause negative impressions. Steve Jobs did that.
As I said before, Steve Jobs died on October 5, 2011, and was not managing long before that. Tim Cook officially became CEO of Apple on August 24, 2011. It seems that Apple's relationships with users have been insufficiently managed since Steve Jobs died.
I don't consider myself an expert. The only Apple products I own are an iMac 24 and an iPod Mini.
I'm amazed at the number of negative articles about Apple that I found on Slashdot that summarize many negative articles elsewhere.
You said, "Absolutely no one would consider Slashdot a sound source of business advice about technology. No one."
The 12 Slashdot stories to which I linked are summaries that link to many stories at other web sites about Apple not managing correctly. When there are many stories like that, the entire reputation of Apple is lowered.
You also said, "Meanwhile Apple has built $260+ billion in cash on its books."
I don't say I know all the answers. However, it appears to me that Apple has done extraordinarily well for 3 main reasons:
1) The world has realized that mobile phones are extremely helpful in making our lives more efficient.
In the past at least, anyone who buys an Android phone is, knowingly or not, buying a phone that is not secure, or will eventually be found not to be secure when vulnerabilies are discovered.
Also, Google has arranged that Google Play apps automatically update themselves. That means the app providers can make changes that allow more control, or do other possibly destructive changes, without the mobile phone user being able to know why a phone is operating differently, or even know that it is operating differently.
3) Steve Jobs built Apple's present world popularity. Steve Jobs was extremely abusive in some ways, but good at making sure that Apple didn't release products with problems. Now that advantage has disappeared, apparently, judging from the 12 Slashdot stories to which I linked.
When you disagree, don't call people "idiots", as you did 2 times. Stay logical. If you know better, show us how you know better.
You can look at it differently. It is not repetition. As I said in my original comment, "Let's talk about what to do about the problems at Apple, rather than just talking about the technical problems." That has not yet begun, but it is extremely relevant to our lives.
In my experience, people on Slashdot don't like talking or even thinking about management, but that would be helpful in our understanding of the work we do and of the world in general.
One of the problems is that many Slashdot readers have not taught themselves much social ability. The comment above yours uses the word "idiot" 2 times.
Let's get started. The problems at Apple are relevant.
Apple is Really Bad At Design Quote from one of the comments: "For all his ability to pitch to the public, Steve Jobs took direct interest in the products his company sold, rather than just focus on managing the company and leaving the decisions to be hashed out by committees developing a consensus several levels below him. The result is what you see now in Apple products - a muddled mess of different ideas that just don't fit together right, and very little actual customer value." -- Steven Maurer
There are more stories that seem to indicate insufficient management at Apple, but that's enough for now.
Slashdot Mirror
"The reasons for this decision are well documented..."
That is a common mistake. Mozilla Foundation "documented" the changes in a way only people who were both technically knowledgeable and had time to give attention to that particular technology subject would understand.
You are satisfied with what was communicated. That is good, but not what is needed. Overall, the public needs to understand all the issues concerning browsers. In fact, the issues are largely hidden.
You said, "Your moderation was well deserved."
My comment to which you are replying was not moderated down. My parent comment was moderated down.
My parent comment contains what I consider to be EXTREMELY important issues. Internet browsers are now an important, necessary part of human culture. We need to understand if there are unacceptable influences. For example, years ago, Microsoft's Internet Explorer version 6 did not implement world-wide standards. IE6 caused a huge number of problems because those with no technical knowledge would use it, not realizing the difficulties for web site developers.
We don't know why Mozilla Foundation has changed from accepting money from Microsoft to accepting money from Google. We are, apparently, not allowed to know. One possibility is that Google is willing to pay more. Another possibility is that there was a breakdown in the relationship between the very poorly managed Yahoo and Microsoft. (Although poorly managed, one reason Yahoo has money is that Yahoo is part owner of Alibaba. See, for example, Why worthless CEOs laugh all the way to the bank. May 20, 2017)
During the time the money from Microsoft dominated Mozilla Foundation's income, Mozilla Foundation released a version of Firefox that removed the ability to use most add-ons. Add-ons are the reason people prefer Firefox. We aren't allowed to kinow why Mozilla Foundation makes its decisions.
During the time that Microsoft dominated, Mozilla Foundation changed the Firefox user interface in a way that had a negative influence on acceptance of Firefox.
During the time that Microsoft dominated, Microsoft tried other ways to dominate: Mozilla and Google accuse Microsoft of unfair browser competition (May 10, 2012)
That is, in fact, what happened, according to news reports at links I gave.
Other people who have commented and I feel uncomfortable with the fact that we aren't allowed to know how Mozilla Foundation spends its money.
The world needs a browser that is not controlled in a hidden way. At one time, I thought we had that. When Google was paying $300,000,000 per year to Mozilla Foundation, to make Google search the default Firefox search engine. it appeared that Google was not negatively influencing the development of Firefox. Of course, we don't know what actually happened.
Moderated down by people who, I'm guessing, don't much disagree, but who want to hide what people and the media are saying.
That's my reaction, also.
The article is poorly edited: "Expenses grew too, but not as much, from $361 million to $337 million...". The numbers should be reversed. When the editing is that sloppy, can we depend on other information being accurate?
Also, the article does not tell the full story. For example: "Mozilla in 2014 signed a major five-year deal with Yahoo to be the default search engine in the US, but canceled it only three years in and moved back to Google instead in November."
During that 3 years, Mozilla was dominated by Microsoft. Microsoft paid Yahoo to use Microsoft's Bing search. Yahoo paid Mozilla Foundation to make Firefox browser use "Yahoo Search", which was actually Microsoft Bing search.
A repost of part of a previous comment:
The browser situation is very, very ugly. Firefox is now, basically, owned by Microsoft, who is apparently trying to destroy it. In the past, Google paid Mozilla Foundation $300 million each year (December 22, 2011) to make Google search the default search engine in Firefox. Google apparently didn't cause problems in the design of Firefox, even though it paid a shocking amount.
Now, I understand, Mozilla Foundation gets most of its money from Microsoft: Microsoft pays Yahoo. Yahoo pays Mozilla Foundation to make "Yahoo search" (actually mostly Microsoft Bing search) (April 16, 2015) the default search engine in Firefox.
The Thunderbird and SeaMonkey Composer GUIs have been damaged in several ways, apparently deliberately. For example, file saves in the newer versions of both ask for a new file name, and don't suggest the last one chosen. The damage was reported several months ago, but has not been fixed.
Mozilla Foundation said it will no longer improve the Thunderbird email client. Is that because Microsoft wants more customers for Microsoft products like Outlook? Is that another example of Microsoft's Embrace, Extend, Extinguish? People who feel forced away from Thunderbird may choose Microsoft software to replace it. Is that something Microsoft is trying to accomplish?
We are seeing technology companies that are shockingly badly managed. Why is that happening? Are we experiencing a general social breakdown?
One small but indicative example: On the Mozilla Foundation Download Firefox in your language web page the 32-bit and 64-bit versions have the same file name!
Mozilla Foundation could be far better at communicating with users. Basically, however, Mozilla Foundation does what big corporations want, apparently. Now that Google is paying Microsoft huge amounts again, will the Firefox browser continue to improve in some ways, but continue to be degraded in others, as in losing important add-ons?
A long time ago, I tried the Google Chrome browser. It installed 3 system services. Google had more control over my computer than me as a limited user!!
In my view, the 3 years of Microsoft paying Mozilla Foundation were 3 years of destructiveness in numerous ways.
Should a United Nations agency demand that browsers not be abusive? That is a world-class goal.
One AC comment about Microsoft: Microsoft's a blight, stuffing ballots, poisoning standardization processes, bribing decision makers, spying on users and using their market power to sell inferior products. Your typical big-corp sociopathic behaviour.
One of the many, many stories about poor management
In 1947, my father worked for RCA. TVs were new. RCA engineers could buy TV components from RCA and build their own TVs.
I watched Kukla, Fran, and Ollie, a puppet show. Fran was a woman much healthier than my parents, so watching the show was good for me.
Also: Remember carbon paper?
"Either way problem solved."
Yes, but the problem is NOT solved. The underlying problem is that the U.S. has become an abusive society. For example, hiring Ajit Pai to stop net neutrality. He has a conflict of interest.
Thanks for the information.
However, in the article she wrote to which you linked, As a Woman in Tech, I Realized: These Are Not My People, she seems to justify my conclusion.
She does not have the fascination with technology that other Slashdot readers and I often have.
I'm also fascinated with women. A long time ago, after a long conversation with a woman, I said, "I seem to be more interested in you than you are." She said, "Maybe you're right!"
Being fascinated with technology doesn't stop fascination with humans.
This is the actual opinion article by the actual publisher, Bloomberg Businessweek: The Internet Had Already Lost Its Neutrality (Nov. 21, 2017) Why did Slashdot link to the same article in The Japan Times?
There are at least 2 separate issues: 1) Neutrality of speed and access of delivery of digital internet information, and 2) "Neutrality" of what people communicate. That 2nd issue is a very old one. Before the year 313 CE (Common Era), people could be killed for being Christian. After the year 313 CE, people could be killed for NOT being Christian.
The Bloomberg article was written by a woman who apparently has NO knowledge of technology and no interest in technology: Megan McArdle is a Bloomberg View columnist.. Look at the other articles by Megan McArdle at that link, for example: Keep Your Dark Chocolate, and Your Unearned Sense of Superiority.
Notice that, in the article about internet neutrality, Megan McArdle calls President Trump the "genital-grabber-in-chief". Is there beginning to be a world-wide understanding that President Trump is not mentally capable of being a leader? Apparently that idea has been adopted by the Japan Times.
Windows 10 is possibly the worst spyware ever made
Quote: "Buried in the service agreement is permission to poke through everything on your PC.
The underlying problem? Try number 2. Downloading a list and warning users of contacting any site on that list may be a good idea. But that should not be a browser function, it should be an operating system function. There should be a warning any time a computer tries to connect to an unsafe site, for any reason, not just because of browsing.
The Slashdot summary and the stories linked in the summary don't mention that Mozilla is apparently merely copying the Google Chrome browser: Manage warnings about unsafe sites.
My initial reaction was incorrect partly because of poor communication. I didn't understand what was being reported.
"When ... did asking questions become something to belittle people over?"
I wish the managers of Slashdot would do something about the people who act out their anger toward Slashdot readers. It's not good for the angry people, and it makes reading Slashdot less pleasant.
Justin Trudeau should also worry about the general breakdown of the U.S. government in many other areas.
Even if Firefox only downloads a list, it is still giving information about your activity to another web site.
The underlying problem? One problem that the management of mozilla.org has is being very poor at communicating. It is common that technically-knowledgeable people don't communicate well. It is common that even people who are especially socially capable make mistakes by communicating in a flawed way.
Another example of poor communication: Mozilla.org management did not handle communicating the move to Firefox 57 well. People use Firefox because of the availability of add-ons, also known as extensions. (Communicate carefully: Don't give 1 thing 2 names.) Preventing use of most add-ons without a careful public explanation tended to cause people to lose confidence in Mozilla.org and begin using Waterfox or Pale Moon browsers.
"Firefox will share your browsing history with another partner."
Or: "Firefox will continuously do hidden things you don't want it to do. That will be the 1st step in other planned surveillance."
Doing sneaky acts that are bad for other people is also extremely unhealthy for those who plan and do those acts. It is degrading mentally.
I wish the U.S. had a healthy government. Let's work toward that goal.
"I can't imagine many other systems that could manage to keep alive a group of people as chronically unhealthy as the Americans."
One big reason U.S. citizens are "chronically unhealthy": They work too much.
Another reason: Women in the U.S. are often anti-male. That results in children who have poor parenting. Those children become unhealthy adults.
There seems to be a general agreement that U.S. health care is TERRIBLE. One article: Healthcare's Perfect Storm of Greed and Incompetence (Oct. 16, 2014).
Quote: "As the U.S. healthcare system slips further into the cellar of metrics for quality and outcomes among the advanced nations of the world, and does it at more than twice the average per capita cost,..."
That article links to 2014 Update: How the U.S. Health Care System Compares Internationally
Result: Of 11 developed countries, the U.S. is last.
Mod parent up. The U.S. health care industry is extremely badly managed.
One of the many books and stories: Death Grip: A Climber's Escape from Benzo Madness.
What about Joshua Topolsky's article, Apple is really bad at design (Sept. 29, 2017) is not correct, in your opinion? What other stories to which I linked are not correct? Topolsky's article in 2013 also seems reasonable to me: The design of iOS 7: simply confusing (June 10, 2013)
There are 2 issues: The underlying facts, and what people think. It is now easy to find articles that talk about Apple not managing well, about Apple being sloppy. Even if those articles are not grounded in reality, they have an effect on Apple's reputation. A socially-capable CEO who is knowledgeable about professional communication minimizes the problems that cause negative impressions. Steve Jobs did that.
As I said before, Steve Jobs died on October 5, 2011, and was not managing long before that. Tim Cook officially became CEO of Apple on August 24, 2011. It seems that Apple's relationships with users have been insufficiently managed since Steve Jobs died.
I don't consider myself an expert. The only Apple products I own are an iMac 24 and an iPod Mini.
I'm amazed at the number of negative articles about Apple that I found on Slashdot that summarize many negative articles elsewhere.
You said, "Absolutely no one would consider Slashdot a sound source of business advice about technology. No one."
The 12 Slashdot stories to which I linked are summaries that link to many stories at other web sites about Apple not managing correctly. When there are many stories like that, the entire reputation of Apple is lowered.
You also said, "Meanwhile Apple has built $260+ billion in cash on its books."
I don't say I know all the answers. However, it appears to me that Apple has done extraordinarily well for 3 main reasons:
1) The world has realized that mobile phones are extremely helpful in making our lives more efficient.
2) The only big competitors use the Google Android operating system. Those competitors prevent updates to fix vulnerabilities. One story about that: Op-ed: It's time for Google to take responsibility for Android's security updates (May 15, 2017)
In the past at least, anyone who buys an Android phone is, knowingly or not, buying a phone that is not secure, or will eventually be found not to be secure when vulnerabilies are discovered.
Also, Google has arranged that Google Play apps automatically update themselves. That means the app providers can make changes that allow more control, or do other possibly destructive changes, without the mobile phone user being able to know why a phone is operating differently, or even know that it is operating differently.
One of the stories: Fake WhatApp Update for Android Dodges Google Play Vetting Process (Nov. 6, 2017)
3) Steve Jobs built Apple's present world popularity. Steve Jobs was extremely abusive in some ways, but good at making sure that Apple didn't release products with problems. Now that advantage has disappeared, apparently, judging from the 12 Slashdot stories to which I linked.
When you disagree, don't call people "idiots", as you did 2 times. Stay logical. If you know better, show us how you know better.
You can look at it differently. It is not repetition. As I said in my original comment, "Let's talk about what to do about the problems at Apple, rather than just talking about the technical problems." That has not yet begun, but it is extremely relevant to our lives.
In my experience, people on Slashdot don't like talking or even thinking about management, but that would be helpful in our understanding of the work we do and of the world in general.
One of the problems is that many Slashdot readers have not taught themselves much social ability. The comment above yours uses the word "idiot" 2 times.
Let's get started. The problems at Apple are relevant.
Wow! In less than 30 minutes, my comment was modded down! I guess 11 stories about insufficient management at Apple are not enough. So, here is one more: The iPhone Is Guaranteed To Last Only One Year, Apple Argues In Court.
Maybe you like Tim Cook as a person, but these Slashdot stories seem to me to be evidence he cannot lead Apple:
Some iPhone X Displays Plagued By Mysterious 'Green Line of Death'
Hackers Say They've Broken Face ID a Week After iPhone X Release
The iPhone X you bought may soon be obsolete: Apple Could Launch Two New Full-Screen iPhones Next Year
Some iPhone X Buyers Are Having Problems Activating Their Phones
An iOS 11.1 Glitch Is Replacing Vowels
App Developer Access To iPhone X Face Data Spooks Some Privacy Experts
PSA: Apple's iPhone X Screen Repair Will Cost You $279
With Camera Permission, iPhone Apps Can Surreptitiously Take Pictures and Videos
iOS 11 'Is Still Just Buggy as Hell'.
Apple Reduced Face ID Accuracy To Ease Production, Bloomberg Reports
Qualcomm Seeks China iPhone Ban, Escalating Apple Legal Fight
Apple is Really Bad At Design
Quote from one of the comments: "For all his ability to pitch to the public, Steve Jobs took direct interest in the products his company sold, rather than just focus on managing the company and leaving the decisions to be hashed out by committees developing a consensus several levels below him. The result is what you see now in Apple products - a muddled mess of different ideas that just don't fit together right, and very little actual customer value." -- Steven Maurer
There are more stories that seem to indicate insufficient management at Apple, but that's enough for now.
Let's talk about what to do about the problems at Apple, rather than just talking about the technical problems.
This recent Slashdot discussion lists other indications of insufficient management at Apple: Should Apple find another CEO? One of the comments: More about recent management of Apple
"Hard to make ends meet with just $250 billion in the bank."
Is this a time for charity? Should each of us send Apple a dollar?
"... either the CEO makes bad choices, or he is unable to manage his staff."
This recent Slashdot discussion lists other indications of insufficient management at Apple: Should Apple find another CEO? One of the comments: More about recent management of Apple