×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Chrome Complicates Mozilla/Google Love-In

CmdrTaco posted more than 5 years ago | from the also-water-is-wet dept.

Mozilla 307

Barence writes "Mozilla CEO John Lilly has admitted the Firefox maker's relationship with Google has become 'more complicated' since the company launched its own browser. Mozilla is dependent on Google for the vast majority of its revenue and has previously worked closely with the search king's engineers on the development of Firefox. But that relationship appears to have cooled since Google released Chrome in the summer. 'We have a fine and reasonable relationship, but I'd be lying if I said that things weren't more complicated than they used to be.'"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

307 comments

Don't take the bait (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26199611)

Chrome is the next IE and Google is now Microsoft. Stick with Linux and stay away from Google.

Re:Don't take the bait (4, Insightful)

not already in use (972294) | more than 5 years ago | (#26199737)

And add another layer to the tinfoil hat, just in case.

Re:Don't take the bait (3, Informative)

techprophet (1281752) | more than 5 years ago | (#26199909)

No, not really. Considering Chrome is open-source. They are just taking longer than they should to release it for Macux.

Re:Don't take the bait (4, Insightful)

not already in use (972294) | more than 5 years ago | (#26200109)

They are just taking longer than they should to release it for Macux.

See, this is what I don't get. Linux folk claim they want companies to throw them a bone and open source their software and the "community" will do the rest. It sounds good when they say it, but why is it never the case?

Re:Don't take the bait (5, Insightful)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 5 years ago | (#26200151)

Because chrome offers very little that linux/mac users don't already have...
If they released the source to something that wasn't already available, you can be sure more developers would pick it up.

Re:Don't take the bait (4, Informative)

FishWithAHammer (957772) | more than 5 years ago | (#26200517)

Except for an independent-process, one-tab-dies-the-rest-of-it's-fine browser that doesn't suck?

The only thing keeping me on Firefox is AdBlock Plus. The second that's in Chrome (or Chromium), I'm gone.

Re:Don't take the bait (1)

windsurfer619 (958212) | more than 5 years ago | (#26201043)

The only thing that dies when I'm running firefox is flash, and even then, it doesn't bring down the browser.

I think Firefox certainly has a fighting chance.

Re:Don't take the bait (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26200805)

Yeah, it offers nothing but the fastest, most stable and most standards compliant browser available.

The community serves the community (3, Insightful)

jopsen (885607) | more than 5 years ago | (#26200599)

The community is not something you should rely on to help your business... The community does not magically embrace things for your benefit... The community is not here to serve your commercial interest...

The community serves the community, and if you business plan involves having millions of volunteer developers work on your products, then you deserve to get your fingers burned.

Re:The community serves the community (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26201149)

Sorry to break this to you but commercial interests are what make the world go 'round. Without some kind of financial backing, not even the open source community can survive.

The Mozilla Foundation operates two for profit corporations.
The Ubuntu Foundation is operated by a for profit company.
Red Hat is a for profit corporation.

Implying that Google and the Chrome browser are any different in this regard is purely ignorant.

Re:Don't take the bait (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26201055)

Open sourceness is a safety valve, if the company ever goes under or turns evil. As long as the company gives it away free and isn't evil, it is only needed in theory, as a stick to threaten the company with a fork if they turn evil.

Re:Don't take the bait (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26200057)

maybe, a chromefoil layer?

Re:Don't take the bait (1)

octaene (171858) | more than 5 years ago | (#26200919)

And use what, Opera with no AdBlock extension? Or, did you mean for us to use Epiphany or Konqueror?

Hmm. (3, Insightful)

contra_mundi (1362297) | more than 5 years ago | (#26199631)

I think we're about to see if Google really isn't evil.

Re:Hmm. (4, Insightful)

liquidpele (663430) | more than 5 years ago | (#26199657)

They're not evil (yet?), but they're not a charity either. If they were evil, they would have cut off all funding the moment chrome took off to try and hurt Firefox. Google appears to be genuinely supportive to me, but that doesn't mean they can't do their own thing too.

Re:Hmm. (-1, Flamebait)

gripusa (1359573) | more than 5 years ago | (#26199957)

Yes Only Microsoft will be EVIL if it is done by them. I never understand the logic or dual standards

Re:Hmm. (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26200015)

Did he even mention Microsoft? Learn to read and not make assumptions about someone's viewpoints, ass.

Re:Hmm. (1)

binarylarry (1338699) | more than 5 years ago | (#26200087)

Fortunately for Mozilla, Chrome has never "took off."

It's not that great really, more of the same.

Re:Hmm. (1)

liquidpele (663430) | more than 5 years ago | (#26200355)

Poor choice of words, I just meant when it shipped. I do wonder how supportive of Mozilla Google would be if it did take off though. I think they support Mozilla right now because they are the largest in the browser market besides Microsoft, but if that were to change... I think Google wants better browsers to help it's business, so I don't think their love is towards Mozilla as much as it is towards better browsers on people's computers.

Re:Hmm. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26200533)

Chrome is underfeatured and is tied into Windows. As much as I would like a free browser that could replace Bloatzilla Firehog in my desktop, I don't see this hack ever running there.

Re:Hmm. (5, Insightful)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 5 years ago | (#26199735)

I think we're about to see if Google really isn't evil.

Just remember that it's not evil to not support a competitor.

Re:Hmm. (5, Insightful)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 5 years ago | (#26199765)

Oh, and the obvious addition: It's not evil to compete, either. (not even if you're Microsoft)

Re:Hmm. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26199887)

Exactly! Let me know when Microsoft decides to compete rather than create a monopoly.

Re:Hmm. (1)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 5 years ago | (#26200037)

Exactly! Let me know when Microsoft decides to compete rather than create a monopoly.

There are dozens and dozens of examples. I'm sitting here with VMware running, so that's an easy target. Virtual PC.

Re:Hmm. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26200621)

Actually MS taking over VirtualPC was as much to protect Windows as anything else.

Without VirtualPC, OS X suddenly lost the ability to run Windows.

Virtual PC was working of a version for OSX on Intel.
Parallels hadn't been announced yet, let alone released.
VMWare hadn't entered the market.
Bootcamp hadn't been released as "beta".

Suddenly with the MS acquisition, the Intel version of Virtual PC was shelved indefinitely.

It was a calculated attack at OS X which was starting to gain market share as an alternative platform to Window, that could also run Windows if you needed to for an App or two.

Re:Hmm. (1)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 5 years ago | (#26201157)

Indeed, they are now integrating hyper-v with windows in an attempt to force vmware out...
How long before windows starts having all kinds of compatibility problems with vmware and not with hyper-v, making vmware look inferior?

Re:Hmm. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26200485)

They're supporting with both money AND source code. Remember the original goal of Chrome was to create what Google thinks should be the vision of the web, and let others take from it.

Please help! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26199767)

I am at a potential girlfriend's house, and I am in the toilet. A few moments ago I grasped my penis in order to urinate into her toilet - however it appears that a hair was caught in my glans, which caused the trajectory of my urine stream to become dangerously unpredictable. Perhaps inevitably, I pissed all over the carpet. Unfortunately she needs to use this toilet, there is no other in her house, but if she comes in here, she will be a witness to my poor penis/glans control! Does the open source community have anything to suggest for this?

Posted from my iPhone.

Re:Please help! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26199817)

Its obvious, just cut *it* off

Re:Please help! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26199915)

Post the source of your mishap. Plus, free your phone.
For future reference: real men sit when on the toilet, no matter if you're taking a dump or a leak

Twitter (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26199955)

From the folks who gave you the Twitter shitter, I give you... the iShower.

Re:Hmm. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26199797)

Can you say "Google, China, and Censorship?"

How about "Google, India, and Information leading to arrest?"

I think we already know that Google is only not evil when it's convenient or it suits them.

Re:Hmm. (4, Informative)

De Lemming (227104) | more than 5 years ago | (#26199807)

I don't think they're evil, but this is a good point for Mozilla to review their funding options. From the article:

[Mozilla CEO John] Lilly admits Mozilla will have to wean itself off its dependence on Google dollars. "Our goal is to be an advocate for the web for 50 or even 100 years, and you can't depend on any one organisation," he added.

Re:Hmm. (4, Insightful)

Slashdotvagina (1434241) | more than 5 years ago | (#26200141)

Of course, replacing an estimated $70 million a year in revenue is easier said than done, especially if these types of search deals dry up.

Relationships are hard. (5, Funny)

fullymodo (985789) | more than 5 years ago | (#26199639)

Maybe Google thought they were "on a break"...

Re:Relationships are hard. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26199793)

Bad choice of words, don't you think?

Why do you have to go and make things so complicated?
I see the way you're
Acting like you're somebody else gets me frustrated
Life's like this, you
And you fall and you crawl
And you break and you take
What you get and you turn it into
Honesty Promise me I'm never gonna find you fake it



No, no, no


You come over unannounced
Dressed up like you're something else
Where you are and
Where you sat, you see
You're making me
Laugh out
When you strike a pose
Take off all your preppy clothes
You know
You're not fooling anyone

So what? (2, Informative)

OrangeTide (124937) | more than 5 years ago | (#26199647)

It's not like Mozilla has some trade secrets to hide from their partner. All the secrets of making a browser seem to be released regularly as source code.

Re:So what? (2, Insightful)

williamhb (758070) | more than 5 years ago | (#26200739)

It's not like Mozilla has some trade secrets to hide from their partner. All the secrets of making a browser seem to be released regularly as source code.

Source code isn't everything. There is a lot of trade wisdom, such as "oh, this is why this other on-the-surface simpler technique doesn't actually work out in practice", that is rarely written into the source code or documentation but that you can get access to if you have a close relationship with the developers. So Google's relationship with Mozilla was probably much more useful for producing Chrome than just having access to Mozilla's source code repository (epecially as Google used WebKit for the source code!)

I don't want to break up.... (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26199649)

All I'm saying is, we should start seeing other people. Just to make sure things between us are right.

It's like you work at an ice cream store (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26199669)

Things are going pretty good. You're scooping some flavors, having some fun, and earning some money. The boss is pretty cool, but one day he brings in his son and tells you he's going to start working there, too. At first you're training the kid, showing him the ropes, and things are going pretty well. But then, before you know it, he's the assistant manager and you're still just a scoop jockey. Yup, that's life.

Re:It's like you work at an ice cream store (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26199695)

Or if he brings in his daughter, you marry her.

Re:It's like you work at an ice cream store (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26199769)

Either way the kid is your new boss.

Re:It's like you work at an ice cream store (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26199951)

At least you're fucking his sister.

Re:It's like you work at an ice cream store (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26201029)

Firechrome? Chromefox?

Re:It's like you work at an ice cream store (3, Funny)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 5 years ago | (#26200711)

There's something disturbing in your analogy.

For instance, where's the car?

Re:It's like you work at an ice cream store (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26201187)

The boss's kid bought one. You still bike to work. Sux when it snows.

Ideally... (4, Insightful)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 5 years ago | (#26199671)

While Chrome may "complicate" their relationship, ideally there should be as many browsers on the market as possible. Microsoft's monopoly over the web produced a sort of tunnel-vision toward website development. Having a variety of browsers available has been changing that. The more browsers available, the more pressure will be placed upon companies to support standards compliance.

So while Mozilla and Google may compete, doing so is in both their interests. In addition, competition is in the consumer's interest because it keeps pushing the browser market forward and gaining us great features like HTML5 compliance, process isolation, privacy modes*, malware protection, etc.

* I've found this to be an excellent way to use an admin login on a site where I also have regular user credentials.

Re:Ideally... (3, Interesting)

mitchell_pgh (536538) | more than 5 years ago | (#26199935)

I don't agree. I feel a majority of the Chrome users are former Firefox/Opera/Safari users. When a dominant minority group (Firefox) is fractured or segmented... it doesn't hurt Internet Explorer. In fact, it helps it.

----- Current Breakdown -----
Internet Explorer 71.11%
Mozilla Firefox 20.06%
Safari 6.62%
Opera 0.75%
Netscape 0.46%
Google Chrome 0.74%)
Other (0.24%)

----- Fun Numbers ----- (100% made up)

Internet Explorer 60%
Mozilla Firefox 15%
Safari 10%
Opera 1%
Netscape 1%
Google Chrome 12%
Other 1%

With the above made up numbers, I can still hear our CFO saying "see, we should focus on Internet Explorer... everyone else doesn't even have 20% share! And, that 'Firefox' thing is going DOWN! "

I'd love to see some information as to what browser current Chrome users transitioned away from.

Competition (1)

overseerbrian (530484) | more than 5 years ago | (#26200197)

Maybe so but here are some possible numbers for when Firefox starts to incorporate some of the good things from Chrome, like threaded browsing.

Internet Explorer 66.11% Mozilla Firefox 25.06% Safari 6.62% Opera 0.75% Netscape 0.46% Google Chrome 0.74%) Other (0.24%)

Re:Ideally... (4, Informative)

dword (735428) | more than 5 years ago | (#26200245)

I'd love to see some information as to what browser current Chrome users transitioned away from.

Here [wikipedia.org] you go!

Re:Ideally... (1)

Tanktalus (794810) | more than 5 years ago | (#26200809)

I'm just not sure what I count as... I use firefox for about 60-70% of my browsing, but nearly any time there's a URL to click on elsewhere (in my konsole, in kmail/kontact, xchat), it opens in konqueror. Should some of these numbers add up to more than 100% then? Or, more likely, does it just count whatever I happened to use at their site(s), and thus be somewhat biased toward primary browsers, ignoring the strength (and importance!) of secondary browsers.

Re:Ideally... (2)

owlnation (858981) | more than 5 years ago | (#26200529)

I suspect that very few Chrome users are former Safari users. Just simply because Safari has very little penetration outwith Mac users, and Chrome isn't available for Mac.

Personally, I can't wait until Chrome is available for Mac. I will be switching from Firefox pretty quickly. Firefox has never worked well on the Mac, although the current version is much better than the horrid mess that was Firefox 2.0.

I don't see any issue with Google competing with Mozilla on this. May the best browser win. If they build the best product they can (i.e. not bloated with awesomebar-esque gimmicks), then people will choose that browser. It's why I switched to Firefox in the first place. And why I will switch away from it, when something better becomes available.

Re:Ideally... (4, Informative)

jonasj (538692) | more than 5 years ago | (#26201041)

Personally, I can't wait until Chrome is available for Mac. I will be switching from Firefox pretty quickly. Firefox has never worked well on the Mac, although the current version is much better than the horrid mess that was Firefox 2.0.

May I ask if you have tried/considered Camino (formerly Chimera), the Mozilla project's native Mac OS X browser? (Same engine, just a native GUI)

http://mozilla.org/projects/camino/ [mozilla.org]

Re:Ideally... (3, Insightful)

JasterBobaMereel (1102861) | more than 5 years ago | (#26200531)

Then point out that 40% of the potential customers are being turned away ....

If you ran a shop and you made the doors awkward for 30-40% of your customers and lost trade because of it you would get fired ...

It is still the case that a lot of websites are designed on Firefox tested on Safari/Opera/Chrome etc ... and then heavily modified to work in IE7, and then more so to work on IE6 ...

A few design to IE7 then find that it does not work on IE6 or anything else ... and spend more time redesigning it ...

Re:Ideally... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26200615)

You can basically count Chrome and Safari as the same, since both are based on Webkit. And numbers for webkit-based browsers will only grow, as it is the basis of the browsers in Iphone and Android phones....

Re:Ideally... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26200929)

Wouldn't Netscape numbers go down, and not up?

fine and reasonable? (-1, Troll)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#26199705)

That's what a red-headed step-child says, when his mom and Gary decide to have a child together. Firefox: prepare your ass for a serious beating! And don't go crying to your real daddy, Marc Andreessen. He doesn't want anything to do with you, either.

Re:fine and reasonable? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26199809)

That's what a red-headed step-child says, when his mom and Gary decide to have a child together. Firefox: prepare your ass for a serious beating! And don't go crying to your real daddy, Marc Andreessen. He doesn't want anything to do with you, either.

Wow, that's a lot of emotion over a browser. Do you need a hug? We can talk, it'll be OK.

Pentrose (4, Insightful)

pentrose (1414005) | more than 5 years ago | (#26199715)

I don't use the Google Browser because I don't want all my browsing history and everything else put in their databases. I think they are overstepping their welcome. Common Google, how about the security of what we post, look at and search for? Are you the FBI? NSA? CIA?

Re:Pentrose (2, Informative)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 5 years ago | (#26200093)

If you otherwise like Google Chrome, then SRWare Iron is the browser you should be checking out: http://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron.php [srware.net]

They'll be fine (1)

biscuitlover (1306893) | more than 5 years ago | (#26199721)

Firefox currently has over 20% of the market share [hitslink.com] and growing - if it continues to gain share then I can't see Google pulling out of an agreement where they're the default search offering for over 20% of people on the web.

Having said this, it's going to be difficult for Mozilla to find a revenue stream that even comes close to that from Google. If they want independence, they'll have a hard time finding it. Somehow I can't see Microsoft stepping in with a bid if Google were to eventually pull out...

Re:They'll be fine (1)

iammani (1392285) | more than 5 years ago | (#26199999)

Firefox currently has over 20% of the market share [hitslink.com] and growing

Wait till Google starts signing agreements with OEMs and Chrome is shipped as the default browser for both Windows and Linux boxes.
And I dont subscribe to the argument that Firefox users would forget/stop using google search, if Yahoo/MSN is set as default browser (Unless of course Mozilla explicitly makes it inconvenient for users to use Google). I would consider Firefox users to be capable to change their default search engine to whatever they prefer.

Re:They'll be fine (1)

jonasj (538692) | more than 5 years ago | (#26201135)

I dont subscribe to the argument that Firefox users would forget/stop using google search, if Yahoo/MSN is set as default

MSN???

"Google makes their own browser now, competing with ours! Quick, switch our default search engine to one that's not made by a competing browser vendor! Yeah, MSN, that's a good choice!"

Uh...

Re:They'll be fine (1)

williamhb (758070) | more than 5 years ago | (#26200953)

Having said this, it's going to be difficult for Mozilla to find a revenue stream that even comes close to that from Google. If they want independence, they'll have a hard time finding it. Somehow I can't see Microsoft stepping in with a bid if Google were to eventually pull out...

Oh I can. They paid Facebook enough to get access to Facebook's advertising and search market, they still make mention of doing a search deal with Yahoo, and Ballmer has made mutterings about open source browsers recently. If Google dropped their deal, I imagine Microsoft would pounce pretty fast. Great marketing with the techie crowd, and a darn site cheaper than a lot of what they've been doing with live.com

Chrome has a long way to go (5, Interesting)

javacowboy (222023) | more than 5 years ago | (#26199819)

I tried Chrome, and while I find it's a refreshing innovation in GUI design for a browser, it has a *long* way to go to match Firefox's features.

Also, it's not yet-cross platform, and from what I understand, it'll take some doing before there's even a Mac version.

There's no browser for me that comes close to Firefox in terms of features. Many will argue that Opera does, and this may be true, but I find the interface a little too alien for my preference.

Also, there's the question of privacy, which Google has a poor track record on. Will Firefox users start to trust Google? I'm not so sure.

Re:Chrome has a long way to go (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26199995)

Will Firefox users start to trust Google? I'm not so sure.

Currently, Firefox defaults to send every search-request or mistyped domain to goolge. Additionally, it checks each and every URL you visit against google's malware-list.
Additionally, Firefox hijacks searches on ebay to include it's own affiliate-link (this only happens in certain localized builds like the builds for Germany, Austria and Switzerland).

BEGINNING to trust google would be a bit late...

Re:Chrome has a long way to go (2, Insightful)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 5 years ago | (#26200031)

Additionally, it checks each and every URL you visit against google's malware-list.

I fail to see how checking hashes against a pre-downloaded list gives out any information about a user

Re:Chrome has a long way to go (1)

garcia (6573) | more than 5 years ago | (#26200085)

I tried Chrome, and while I find it's a refreshing innovation in GUI design for a browser, it has a *long* way to go to match Firefox's features.

The thing about Chrome that is the most attractive is its small footprint (aside from the god damn GoogleUpdater running in the background) and speed in loading. My main machine at home is an underpowered laptop and Chrome is smoking the living shit out of a fresh install of Firefox (i.e. no add-ons installed) speed wise, especially in booting up.

Do you remember when Firefox came out as an alternative browser and its main focus was being on slim and fast? Well, those days are gone and we now have a bloated monster which takes for-fucking-ever to boot on my slower machine. Why is this, I really want to know?

While I don't install Chrome on all my machines (I like GreaseMonkey scripts and AdBlock Plus), it is very useful on a machine where I don't need it swapping out to load the application and three windows/tabs. Firefox really needs to step back and say to themselves, "do we need to continue down the path that so many other browsers have taken up and failed with?" Google needs to heed those words for future consideration as well.

Re:Chrome has a long way to go (3, Insightful)

Kent Recal (714863) | more than 5 years ago | (#26200545)

Do you remember when Firefox came out as an alternative browser and its main focus was being on slim and fast? Well, those days are gone and we now have a bloated monster which takes for-fucking-ever to boot on my slower machine.

They're working on it. If you dare you can take a look at a nightly [mozilla.org] and see for yourself. For me it's now almost as fast as opera and that is under linux. Firefox used to be a real dog under linux, mind you, even worse than the windows version.

Why is this, I really want to know?

Well, I guess they can only do so much. We have tons of new features and an amazing Addon-System by now, the guys who developed all that probably couldn't focus on performance at the same time. But the good news is, as said, it's improving and one of your next fox updates will give you a nice speed boost.

Re:Chrome has a long way to go (1)

garcia (6573) | more than 5 years ago | (#26201159)

They're working on it. If you dare you can take a look at a nightly and see for yourself.

I have run the nightlies and had been running Minefield (as suggested here once before) for a while before I realized that WordPress 2.7's admin panel wasn't saving drafts of my posts automatically. Thinking it was a WordPress issue I reported a bug and then later found out it was a Minefield issue. I "upgraded" to Shiretoko (I believe that's what it was) and it worked again but other failures in basic functionality appeared (e.g. not being able to submit a web-based tweet on twitter).

I like the add-ons and find them useful but for them to completely ignore speed (which was the original goal of the browser) and develop something else (which wasn't) is wasteful.

BTW, while the nightlies might appear faster, they're still a huge hog and nowhere near the speed that Chrome offers. I find it spectacularly odd that you would get a +5 for your comment which is little more than a rehash of what others have suggested.

Re:Chrome has a long way to go (3, Interesting)

renoX (11677) | more than 5 years ago | (#26200217)

>>I tried Chrome, and while I find it's a refreshing innovation in GUI design for a browser, it has a *long* way to go to match Firefox's features.

The thing is: the reverse is *also* true!
Firefox has also a long way to go before matching Chrome on some features such as responsiveness (thanks to Chrome's multi-process architecture).
I've dropped Firefox due to its poor responsiveness, I'm currently using Opera but my trials with Chrome were quite positive too.

So in one 'word': YMMV.

Re:Chrome has a long way to go (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26200487)

The great thing about open source software is that you can change what you don't like!

Check out SRWare Iron here http://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron.php

It doesn't create a client ID (GUID for each user) and has all the reporting chrome does back to Google removed.

PEOPLE! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26199945)

Chromium is poisonous and "Mozilla" is imaginary, like Jesus and Santa Claus. So get over it! Everyone should explore the Inter-net in their own way and I love them anyhow! Everybody should hug me now!!!!!!

Re:PEOPLE! (1)

iammani (1392285) | more than 5 years ago | (#26200023)

Chromium is poisonous and "Mozilla" is imaginary, like Jesus and Santa Claus. So get over it! Everyone should explore the Internet Explorer in their own way and I love them anyhow! Everybody should hug me now!!!!!! -- Steve Balmer

Fixed it for you

Use of resources (4, Insightful)

Dan East (318230) | more than 5 years ago | (#26199961)

If Google felt that a browser with Chrome's security / capability needed to exist, then they should have opened a dialog with Mozilla to discuss how FireFox could be enhanced to that end. Google could have provided funding or coders to help make that possible.

Internet Explorer has lost ground, but that is primarily because there has been a single, well-defined alternative - Firefox. Segmentation of the alternative-to-IE market at this point could be disastrous. The sleeping giant has already been awakened, and Microsoft has turned IE from a piece of crap that had languished for years into a modern, legitimate browser. Microsoft won't make the same mistake twice, and they are aggressively working to regain their browser market share.

I can only think of three logical explanations for Google to release their own browser:
It is really just an experiment, and Google will just pull the plug on it out of the blue. They've done this before with other experimental projects.

They want Chrome to replace Firefox as the alternative to IE, so they will have complete control over the market. This makes sense, because the web browser is the total point of interface to their multi-billion dollar industry. It is logical that they would want direct control over that component.

They did try to get Mozilla to make changes to Firefox, but their requests were ignored.

Re:Use of resources (1)

Shados (741919) | more than 5 years ago | (#26200273)

Google is aggressively advertising Chrome lately, so I doubt they'll be pulling the plug on it

Re:Use of resources (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26200419)

Eh? I think they are simply trying to ensure ie doens't go back to being the *main* browser most people use. IE has been improving and remember that IE just only has to be "good enough" for most users for them not to bother installing something else. Google has marketing power/brand name to oppose this unlike mozilla.

Also, webkit code is far cleaner then mozilla's. Google may have just saw that it would be faster to build a new browser around webkit. I personally found that firefox always seems to have some memory issue or another. While chrome, even though it uses more memory, always seems to release the SAME amount of memory per page that was originally allocated to and is more responsive (better general use of memory?).

NOTE: I still use firefox due to extensions...

Re:Use of resources (1)

eulernet (1132389) | more than 5 years ago | (#26200535)

Your post was interesting until I read:

Microsoft has turned IE from a piece of crap that had languished for years into a modern, legitimate browser

Uh ? When did IE7 become a legitimate browser ?
It's super crappy, slow as hell and almost as buggy as IE6. And IE8 will continue with a super slow Javascript engine, when Javascript becomes more and more important.

And you also argue that Microsoft won't do the same error twice. Well, I think they lost the edge since XP. They are no more the leaders since a few years ago. They keep copying excellent ideas from their competitors, and transform them into underwhelming features.
Because of Vista's aggressive pushing, I think that a lot of consumers have lost their faith in Microsoft.

Re:Use of resources (1)

Serious Callers Only (1022605) | more than 5 years ago | (#26200617)

Microsoft won't make the same mistake twice

It wasn't a mistake; IE (and the internet with it) languished for years for a reason.

They want Chrome to replace Firefox as the alternative to IE, so they will have complete control over the market.

Or perhaps they just want anyone but Microsoft to control the market, because Microsoft's MO has been to attempt to undermine and destroy their competitors utterly, by any means they can. Having a company like that with a monopoly of the browser market must make Google very nervous - browsers are the only conduit for users to reach Google and see their ads and use their online office suites etc.

Did you consider that their motivation might be to replace IE as the default browser with something else? Google do not have to control this market, or even come close to doing that, to win. They just need someone other than MS to control it.

Re:Use of resources (1)

JasterBobaMereel (1102861) | more than 5 years ago | (#26200687)

Have you seen IE8?

Gets the Lowest score in the compatability tests (Less than some mobile phone browsers)
Gets the lowest score in the Javascript tests ... (and cannot even complete some!)

when are they going to turn it into a legitimate browser ?

Re:Use of resources (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 5 years ago | (#26200941)

Reason 4: Google is also working on a mobile phone stack which includes a browser. Releasing a windows version means 1) bugs/incompatabilities in the browser can be found and 2) web developers can test android compatability without an android phone. Note that Apple released a windows version of Safari for similar reasons.

Well, yeah. (4, Interesting)

Millennium (2451) | more than 5 years ago | (#26200083)

Of course it complicates things. Perhaps this should serve as a wake-up call to the Mozilla folks, seeing at this is now makes the developer (after AOL and Apple) to, having initially showed strong support for Mozilla's projects, ultimately reject Gecko when the time came to make its own browser.

The only common thread between these three companies (among others) and their rejection of Gecko is Gecko itself: they've embraced a wide variety of other engines, they stand in opposition to Microsoft to varying degrees (including, in some cases, none at all), and the browsers they ultimately produced tend to follow many different paradigms and philosophies. Yet all of them agree, in the end, that Gecko was not going to get the job done. Something is very wrong with that picture, and it bothers me how the Mozilla team seems to take it so nonchalantly.

I say all of this as a Firefox fan who is nonetheless worried about the future of the engine that made standards-compliance important on the Web again. I have a few guesses as to what mistakes might have been made, but I don't claim to know for certain. What I do claim to know is that something needs to be done, even if the first step is just to figure out exactly what that is.

Re:Well, yeah. (5, Interesting)

AvitarX (172628) | more than 5 years ago | (#26200553)

The AOL rejection is weird, because they purchased Netscape, but it made sense. They already had their users hearing murmuring that AOL was not the internet, the last thing they wanted was to have their users not be able to visit online-banks.

If AOL had embraced Gecko, I wonder where they would be. They would have been seen as a force of good for internet standardization, and it probably would be the thing they do that makes them the most money right now. Considering they made their millions selling internet adds back in the day, you would think they could see the potential.

The choice of Apple to ignore gecko, and instead start from a very primitive engine and build on it is quite interesting. They clearly saw shortcomings in Gecko that they thought they could avoid, and felt that re-creating the wheel was an expense well spent (KHTML was pretty poor back then, with terrible DHTML support, and rendering differences to the extreme, in fact, until Safari 3, webkit was like stepping back 3-5 years and using Gecko).

The fact that developers are in general using webkit now when faced with the choice (many OSS browsers are switching even) is very telling too. It wasn't just Apple that saw shortcomings.

Nokia had a mobile browser they were working on using Gecko, but I bet the purchase of Trolltech will alter that choice to a point.

That pretty much leaves Sugar, and Firefox. Of course, the fact that Firefox has all those great extensions is a strong point in its favor, with the web developer tool bar being awesome, but hardly relevant to most people.

Re:Well, yeah. (3, Interesting)

b4dc0d3r (1268512) | more than 5 years ago | (#26200989)

I found the source code to be repulsive. I could not possibly take over that code and make my own browser out of it, except for minor GUI changes maybe.

I was looking into a problem for ReactOS [reactos.org] where the installer would explode, and just browsing the source made my head hurt. There were nearly-identical copies of files in a number of places - so that I couldn't determine which were the files included in the build - or maybe all were... and it wasn't just an old version, these files were out of sync with each other and being maintained separately.

There is no way I would let anyone but Mozilla Foundation play with that code.

Googles new strategy? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26200359)

1) Embrace
2) Extend
3) ????
4) Profit

Firefox + Thunderbird + Sunbird (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26200489)

It's a shame, really, Mozilla offers such great products like Firefox, Thunderbird and Sunbird, but Google only offers Chrome, a browser, no email, no cale... oh wait!

Not much to worry (1)

Xymor (943922) | more than 5 years ago | (#26200571)

Mozilla will have Google's support as long as FF marketshare stays big and that google search textbox keeps bringing google several hits.

Healthy competition is good for Firefox (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26200639)

Only after 2 days of using Chrome I set it to my default browser. What do I really miss from Firefox? Off the top of my head, the most important one is Adblock Plus and Flashblock. The other is IEtab which I've found myself have not used for months.

Chrome is quite good, at least much better than Safari on Windows. Safari on Windows was slow, buggy and bloat and support nothing but English.

Let's face it, there are still small problems with Firefox such as font rendering, fonts are clipped on some page. Hidden configurations - it is still troublesome to set the disk-cache directory, which Firefox habitually delete the cached content upon closing. Now I use the Java SmartCache instead of the heavy-weight Squid. Bookmarking is still a dog to manipulate, sorting them take ages and frozen the entire program. It would be much nicer to move or copy bookmarks in a folder/file hierarchy like IE favorites. Load a page with Java or something heavy cause the whole program to freeze for 20 seconds, which Chrome doesn't do that. Java support never seems to work nicely with Firefox, it is either freezing for half a minute or completely frozen. These problems are not critical, but need to be addressed. I am sure Mozilla developers has much higher priority for other things like TraceMonkey and small problems like I mentioned only get drowned to the bottom of bugtrack. That is exactly why Chrome is good for Firefox: healthy competition.

Rules of investing (1, Insightful)

C_Kode (102755) | more than 5 years ago | (#26200725)

If you looking at a company you might want to invest in, always look at where their income comes from. If most of it comes from a single location, that is a DAMN risky investment.

If a majority of Mozilla's incoming comes from Google, then Mozilla isn't financially sound. They should have started looking for other revenue streams long ago.

Re:Rules of investing (1)

Toll_Free (1295136) | more than 5 years ago | (#26200873)

But, Mozilla is F/OSS.

That means they don't need revenue. They will make money supporting it. Lord knows an internet browser is a COMPLICATED thing!!!!!

Wait, that just isn't working, is it?

--Toll_Free

? How does common sense become news? (0)

Toll_Free (1295136) | more than 5 years ago | (#26200859)

How is it this common sense shit gets on the front page?

Corp A and Corp B are in bed over Browser G

Corp A created, Corp B bought it (through Rev Gen on advertising)

Corp B said Fuck Corp A, we can have our OWN browser, and have our OWN flunkies creating it.

PROFIT!!!!

Corp A now dries up and does nothing, going back to F/OSS roots since Corp B figured out light at end of tunnel.

Opera starting to look better and better (I run Opera).

--Toll_Free

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...