Beta
×

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!

Download Firefox, Feed a Red Panda

samzenpus posted more than 3 years ago | from the have-a-sandwich dept.

Firefox 90

KenW writes "Mozilla has launched a new marketing campaign to promote Firefox: adopting red pandas and putting them on live webcams. The company wants to underline the fact that the red panda is the mascot for its open source browser via a new section on its site called Firefox Live. It's clear that Mozilla is trying to think of new ways to promote its browser ahead of the launch of Firefox 4. The company has been struggling recently as Firefox steadily loses share to Google Chrome."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

there's only one bear that needs feeding (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34473964)

... and that's pedobear!

Re:there's only one bear that needs feeding (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34474014)

Actually, red pandas would be more closely related to shotacat.

Re:there's only one bear that needs feeding (2)

Third Position (1725934) | more than 3 years ago | (#34474612)

Red panda - eats, shoots, and leaves.

Re:there's only one bear that needs feeding (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34476246)

Holy shit, that link in your sig is friggin racist. I wish I could mod you down just for that!

Re:there's only one bear that needs feeding (1)

Killall -9 Bash (622952) | more than 3 years ago | (#34481354)

Opposing illegal immigration is clearly racist.

Re:there's only one bear that needs feeding (1)

freedumb2000 (966222) | more than 3 years ago | (#34484344)

My friend, look at the wikipedia article on the group, do a google search or spend more than 5 seconds on their website and it will be very obvious to you. This is a white power movement and nothing else.

Re:there's only one bear that needs feeding (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34485544)

I suggest you have a look at their single-sentence mission statement.

Re:there's only one bear that needs feeding (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34486636)

Look, if it upsets you that much, post your address and we'll be glad to mail you a hankie. A nice pink one to go with your politics.

Re:there's only one bear that needs feeding (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34495374)

I wish you were a troll, but unfortunatly for this this world, I bet you are not.

Re:there's only one bear that needs feeding (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34480504)

But in Soviet Russia, red leaves eat and shoot panda.

Re:there's only one bear that needs feeding (2)

DemoLiter3 (704469) | more than 3 years ago | (#34477270)

He only needs a kitty or two a day

Everytime you download... (4, Funny)

IronSight (1925612) | more than 3 years ago | (#34473970)

Chrome, god kills another red panda?

Bah, that's probably another urban legend (4, Funny)

Moraelin (679338) | more than 3 years ago | (#34474704)

Bah, that's probably another urban legend.

I mean like back when they told me that each time I masturbate Jesus kills a kitten. Let me tell you I put some serious effort into it, and the stray cat situation around here seemed entirely unaffected ;)

Re:Everytime you download... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34475194)

No thats IE.

Re:Everytime you download... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34475930)

Chrome, god kills another red panda?
 
Linguo: Sentence fragment.
Lisa: "Sentence fragment" is also a sentence fragment.
Linguo: [shifts eyes around] Must conserve battery power.

FireFOX (0)

EricX2 (670266) | more than 3 years ago | (#34473972)

It's Firefox, not Fireredpanda... but maybe they should change their name, it's stayed the same for a long time now.

Do the pandas sneeze? If so, I'll watch them 24x7!

Re:FireFOX (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34474050)

It's Firefox, not fox. A fox is a fox, a firefox is another name for a red panda.

The panda is a lie (3, Informative)

arth1 (260657) | more than 3 years ago | (#34474434)

No, it isn't. The first literal translation of the Chinese glyphs for red panda (in a dialect that doesn't distinguish the red fox from the red panda) to "fire fox" was done long after Firefox came about.

It was called Firefox because the earlier name, Firebird, had too many well-defended trademarks. From Ben Goodger's log in 2004, courtesy of the wayback machine:

"The process began in late November. Mozilla's Chief Architect Brendan Eich had made a commitment to resolve the dispute over Firebird's code name (which was being widely adopted as the browser's actual name) by the 0.8 milestone. Over the span of about 2 weeks a small group at The Mozilla Foundation including Catherine Corre, Bart Decrem, Brendan Eich, Chris Hofmann and myself pored over lists of over two hundred names, many gleaned from the Phoenix to Firebird transition. We reached a point where we had a handful that were the best of that lot, but none of us was entirely satisfied. Searches of the United States Patent and Trademark Office website showed that all of the options we had picked up were potential minefields from a trademark point of view. We refocused our energy on names beginning with "Fire-" in an attempt to preserve the link with the past, and so that we could retain some of our evocative flame imagery.

Ultimately it was Jason Kersey of MozillaZine that came up with the winner. I don't think he was serious with his suggestion, but the naming group liked it well enough. A scan of the USPTO database was positive. We filed for a trademark registration in the United States in December 2003."

Note that from the start of using the name Firefox, the logo has always been of a fox, not a panda. The panda is a backport, possibly to distance themselves from the foxfire culture.

Re:The panda is a lie (1)

eepok (545733) | more than 3 years ago | (#34474748)

And let's not forget that Phoenix came before Firebird. Of course, the BIOS company took issue with that once it's beta started gaining momentum...

I still remember the frustration I had when it went from Phoenix to Firebird and Firebird to Firefox. I had been telling people to install the browser (and installing it myself on their computers during troubleshooting sessions), but their name changes kinda hurt their "reliability" in the eyes of new users.

REVELATION AT HAND: Chimera animals are mascot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34481390)

Because they are fabricated animals of imagination to become the mascotts of which no organization can lay claim, and then in the end-times these organizations finally genetically-engineer these mythological and pseudo-animal mascotts into existence just to prove a point that this is the Day of the LORD God of HOST[S]-a-[s]ages come to wreak havoc that only the New Creation will survive while the old perishes.

On second thought, maybe every time you download Firefox then Mozilla Foundation feeds a Red Panda by killing an existing one to be used as food. What part of "feed" gives anyone the impression that food just magically appears like Jesus stretching wood or breaking bread?

Re:The panda is a lie (1)

scorp1us (235526) | more than 3 years ago | (#34476354)

Why not call 4.0 FirePanda?

Re:The panda is a lie (1)

arth1 (260657) | more than 3 years ago | (#34478176)

Not only is it less catchy simply because it's more syllables, but they would have to go through the same name process again, including searching the trademark databases in lots of countries, twice.

Plus, haven't there been enough name changes already?

NCSA Netsite -> Mosaic -> Netscape Navigator -> Netscape Communicator -> Phoenix -> Firebird -> Firefox isn't enough?
(Not to mention alternative names, like IceWeasel?)

When I hear Firefox (1)

anss123 (985305) | more than 3 years ago | (#34473982)

I think of a fox that's ON FIRE and nothing else. Damn pandas.

Re:When I hear Firefox (1, Informative)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 3 years ago | (#34474940)

I think of a fresh fucked fox in a forest fire. Now you're probably wondering: fox the animal or fox the hot piece of ass? It's both, actually. I'm a furry.

!surprise (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34477674)

I'm a furry.

-1 Redundant.

They look tasty.... (2)

Dexter Herbivore (1322345) | more than 3 years ago | (#34474008)

Oh wait, they mean feed the Red Panda, not feed me. Pity, they look delicious.

Re:They look tasty.... (1)

ChefInnocent (667809) | more than 3 years ago | (#34474392)

I wasn't sure. The picture here was only a face (and you can tell nothing about its edibility by a face), so I went and did a Google search, and found the Red Panda on Wikipedia. Apparently, they use to classify these similar to raccoons. That may be because they tasted similar. Now the diet of the animal may indicate it should be seasoned slightly differently. Might try substituting the Worcestershire for soy sauce, and juniper berries for bamboo shoots & watercress. The Zane Grey cookbook I have at home might also have some very tasty recipes; otherwise, it looks like the . One day I'm going to try the squirrel recipes from that book, but the local parks prohibit taking their squirrels, and the ones in the forest are diseased.

Re:They look tasty.... (1)

RockDoctor (15477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34485220)

the local parks prohibit taking their squirrels, and the ones in the forest are diseased.

What makes you think that the ones in the parks are any less diseased than the forest ones? Are you sure that the parks prohibit the taking of "their" squirrels. Because if they assert property rights over the squirrels, then they also assume responsibility for every squirrel bite, every purloined sandwich, and every (allegedly) spread bacterium. A little bit of judicious enquiry ("I've been bitten by one of your squirrels in your park ; who do I send the writ to?") and I'm sure they'll rapidly assert that the squirrels are actually wild animals.

After that, your humane traps would surely be appreciated.

How did Uncle Tom put it?

Why don't you come with me,
And we'll poison the pigeons in the park.
And maybe we'll do
In a squirrel or two,
While we're poisoning pigeons in the park.

We'll murder them all amid laughter and merriment,
Except for the few we take home to experiment.
My pulse will be quickenin'
With each drop of strych'nine
We feed to a pigeon.
(It just takes a smidgin!)
To poison a pigeon in the park.

News At 11 - Entire Firefox Development Team Eaten (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34474058)

LOL

This is ridiculous. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34474082)

When I'm using Firefox, I don't give the slightest shit about red pandas.

Struggling? (2)

bunratty (545641) | more than 3 years ago | (#34474170)

The company has been struggling? It seems to me they're doing very well. Perhaps they've lost 1-2% usage share over the past two years, but Chrome is mostly stealing share from IE, not Firefox. Firefox share is holding steady at between 20 to 30%.

Re:Struggling? (1)

lennier1 (264730) | more than 3 years ago | (#34474706)

That's if you're talking large numbers. There are certainly smaller numbers who are leaving FF in favor of Chrome because of problems with Firefox.

An example would be the old default settings problem in the file handling.
If you click on a direct link to a CSV file and specify a program to open it with (e.g. OpenOffice Calc) and check the "always perform this action" checkbox it will work in the future.
But if Firefox receives such a file as a header attachment the same setting will be ignored.
This is due to a mostly academical discussion over security concerns. The arguments against it may be valid, but what the average user will perceive is simple basic functionality that doesn't work as expected.
A few more usability/stability problems and users will look favorable to embracing alternatives.

Re:Struggling? (1)

arth1 (260657) | more than 3 years ago | (#34475048)

That's if you're talking large numbers. There are certainly smaller numbers who are leaving FF in favor of Chrome because of problems with Firefox.

Or because of speed. For certain ajax-heavy apps, Firefox can be rather sluggish.

In my case, it's a problem with Firefox, though -- it uses its own font rendering engine which isn't DPI-aware. Firefox simply doesn't work well on high DPI displays. I have to go in the prefs and change the font settings for multiple fonts for each and every locale I use, every time I switch displays.
That it also eats up a huge part of the screen real estate for the menu + toolbar + bookmarks bar + tabs + status bar is another strike against it when used on small screens.

Re:Struggling? (3, Informative)

Lennie (16154) | more than 3 years ago | (#34475822)

FF4 will be released in Q1, it solves all these issues.

Re:Struggling? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34481764)

Yes and Chrome solved it quite some time ago.

Let me see. Should I use Chrome right now or wait for a promised fix in Firefox sometime in the future?

Re:Struggling? (1)

Lennie (16154) | more than 3 years ago | (#34490102)

I personally think Chrome is pretty buggy. It hangs and crashes a lot, not just tabs and breaks TCP-connections before stuff has been downloaded.

Where Firefox would have loaded the page just fine, Chrome would not load all the elements in the page.

Most of the time a refresh would solve that, it is not a server or network problem.

What is the use of loading a page faster if it doesn't load the whole page ?

Also it doesn't have the tools/extensions I need.

Re:Struggling? (1)

bunratty (545641) | more than 3 years ago | (#34475058)

How does smaller number of users leaving FF in favor of Chrome equate to Mozilla struggling? They seem to be doing great. If they started having unprofitable quarters, perhaps someone could say that Mozilla is struggling, but not because they've lost some amount of usage share. In fact, I think they have more users [amuir.org] and are making more profit [lockergnome.com] than ever. (The usage share can drop even as they gain more users because there are more people using the Internet every month.) They're hardly struggling.

Re:Struggling? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34475240)

Sounds like you're replying at the wrong level. What you're talking about is in the comment above that one.

Re:Struggling? (1)

Lennie (16154) | more than 3 years ago | (#34475786)

"There are certainly smaller numbers who are leaving FF in favor of Chrome because of problems with Firefox."

Their are also certainly other parts of the world where Firefox is increasing in marketshare, what is your point ?

It's smaller number.

Re:Struggling? (1)

arth1 (260657) | more than 3 years ago | (#34474908)

It's not the number of users, it's the amount of income. From things like embedded browsers and purchased support. Which, from what I can tell, isn't doing as well as the competition.

Re:Struggling? (1)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 3 years ago | (#34477852)

Err, Chrome is eating into Firefox, not IE. The IE users are computer illiterates who think the blue buttons means "the internet."

Right now, Chrome is an impressive piece of software. Soon they'll ship a built-in PDF viewer (goodbye Adobe exploits) and have started sandboxing Flash. Its also fast and stable.

Firefox is the current IE6. Its bloaty, slow, and mismanaged (no h.264 for html5). Of course you may disagree with that, but even as a loyal Firefox user since the days of Phoenix I'm really tempted to just switch to Chrome.

Shiny new toy syndrome (4, Interesting)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 3 years ago | (#34474172)

I think one of the reasons Chrome is affecting Firefox is the "Shiny new toy syndrome" and FF lack of willingness to support business needs.
If using Chrome becomes as "cool" as it was when Firefox started, then Firefox will be in trouble.

On the business needs side, Firefox is still stalling on:
-an official MSI package for Windows platform (BTW: If FF MSI cannot auto-update, corps will love it more. It's a control thing...)
-official, built-in, GPO support
-official, built-in automated add-on installation

On the JavaScript side, however, FF is doing pretty good lately: http://arewefastyet.com/ [arewefastyet.com]

Re:Shiny new toy syndrome (0)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34474474)

I dislike chrome (actually Chromium).

It's hard for me to say why exactly but there are certain annoyances, like closing the whole window when I close a tab, or not having a convenient way to access bookmarks, or inability to arrange the "opera speeddial" clone the way I like, and so on.

I think I'll stick with Mozilla Netscape or Firefox or SeaMonkey for now.

Re:Shiny new toy syndrome (1)

definate (876684) | more than 3 years ago | (#34475036)

Is Mozilla Netscape seriously still around? I could have sworn the split off was the creation of FireFox (or Phoenix, from memory).

Re:Shiny new toy syndrome (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34475596)

Mozilla Netscape is still useful, but will soon be obsolete due to age (two years). SeaMonkey is its closest replacement.

Re:Shiny new toy syndrome (1)

aztracker1 (702135) | more than 3 years ago | (#34479988)

I've switched to chrome at work, mainly because it works better with the firewall... though there are some things I miss, and the F12(firebug) in Firefox has a better UI than the CTRL+SHIFT+I developer tools in Chrome... having to go to the bottom of the screen for the element selector button, to go back to the page to select an element is annoying, there's a few other annoyances as well, some parts work better though... GP is right IMO because the GPO/MSI integration is very important, even having it as a package to be injected to MSI with additional options would be a win. I think the chrome (always current) is better imho than the firefox ask/update... but per-user installs though easier for updates, are a relative fail for chrome.

Re:Shiny new toy syndrome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34475220)

Actually I don't pick my browser based on popularity, I base my decision on quality, speed, features, style and performance.

That's why I use Opera.

Re:Shiny new toy syndrome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34475222)

Firefox's performance is pretty much why I've been using Chrome. FF4 seems to have greatly improved that situation though, so I might find myself using it again.

Re:Shiny new toy syndrome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34476558)

I actually think you're wrong. As much as I love FF and got used to it ever since the Phoenix days I have to say that I'm also catching myself more often setting up chrome as default browser just because it starts almost instantly, where FF takes cca 30sec to start up, and then another 30sec to load the page.
If they invested more money into developing a faster browsing expirience for end-user and not for some lame benchmarks then maybe ppl wouldn't be interested in other products.

Re:Shiny new toy syndrome (1)

easterberry (1826250) | more than 3 years ago | (#34479774)

I recently switched to Chrome because it DOESN'T creep its way up to the 2 gig memory usage mark after awhile like Firefox has recently been doing on my machine. It had nothing to do with how shiny Chrome is.

Re:Shiny new toy syndrome (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34485150)

I dislike chrome (actually non-google Chromium).

It's hard for me to say why exactly but there are certain annoyances, like closing the whole window when I close the last tab, or not having a convenient way to save bookmarks, or inability to arrange the "opera speed dial" clone the way I like, and so on.

I think I'll stick with Mozilla Netscape or Firefox or SeaMonkey for now.

Not really (2)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#34474218)

The company has been struggling recently as Firefox steadily loses share to Google Chrome.

Near as I can tell, Firefox market share has been at a standstill. Chrome has grown at around the pace IE has dropped. Whether that means users have gone IE -> Chrome or IE -> Firefox and Firefox -> Chrome is a bit open, but they're not losing. However with Chrome in the 10-15% range you have to ask how long they'll keep backing Firefox and just go all out on developing Chrome.

Re:Not really (1)

bunratty (545641) | more than 3 years ago | (#34474368)

Google backs Firefox because Firefox uses Google as the default search engine. If Google stops backing Firefox, Firefox may switch to another default search engine, and Google would lose money because its ads will get fewer hits.

Besides, if what Google wants is strong browsers for which to develop complex applications, the best way to achieve that is through competition between differing browsers. Chrome must improve because there are some things that Firefox does better, and Firefox must improve because there are some things Chrome does better. The end result is that everyone benefits. I don't think even Google believes that going all out on developing Chrome is the way to make Chrome best.

Re:Not really (1)

tsa (15680) | more than 3 years ago | (#34475820)

Interesting that you don't even mention IE.

Re:Not really (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#34476072)

Well if they drop it completely. But I assume what they get paid is related to their market share or hits generated, if Google can move 1% from Firefox to Chrome they pay "themselves" instead of paying Mozilla and that's money saved. And they get people using a Google product strengthening their brand, while Mozilla is someone else's brand. They also have the freedom to direct development and link Chrome harder to Google services in ways Mozilla might not accept, like pushing H.264 support for the video tag which Chrome supports and Mozilla doesn't (I'm ignoring WebM since that's irrelevant to the point). In all honesty, do you honestly think Google would mind if Chrome became the single dominant browser for web applications? You greatly overestimate how much companies like competition.

Besides, if you think a little tactics there's not many places for Firefox to go. Nobody outside China will want Baidu and Bing would create all sorts of hate from the anti-M$ faction of open source. There's really just Yahoo and a few <1% obscure search engines to pick from. Personally I suspect the funding has been higher than strictly necessary in order to speed development and bring about the fall of IE, which has been good business for Google. If they now see Chrome as the means to do that and offer just enough to win over the competition, Firefox development could get rather anemic.

Re:Not really (1)

e70838 (976799) | more than 3 years ago | (#34476092)

Google needs competition to avoid monopoly problems. Too many people would like to kill Google. Their single protection is to have real competition.
I think this is their main reason to back Firefox.

Re:Not really (1)

bunratty (545641) | more than 3 years ago | (#34476204)

Google is closest to a monopoly in terms of search engines, not browsers. Their competition in the search space is Bing (Microsoft), Yahoo, and Ask.

Re:Not really (1)

dAzED1 (33635) | more than 3 years ago | (#34478456)

ask doesn't do web searches anymore. Just fyi.

Re:Not really (1)

bunratty (545641) | more than 3 years ago | (#34481930)

Interesting. I just went to ask.com and typed in a term and it gave me a list of web pages as search results. Why do you say Ask doesn't do web searches any more?

Re:Not really (1)

thejynxed (831517) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483336)

Probably because Ask and Yahoo no longer run their own search engines. They use Bing on the backend.

Re:Not really (1)

dAzED1 (33635) | more than 3 years ago | (#34495106)

what he said.

Re:Not really (1)

Khenke (710763) | more than 3 years ago | (#34474518)

However with Chrome in the 10-15% range you have to ask how long they'll keep backing Firefox and just go all out on developing Chrome.

I bet Google don't care if Chrome+FF=biggest browser or just Chrome=biggest browser.
What Google want is stable browsers that evolve to the better, not backwards closed unstable IE6.

The more choice the users have to see their ads, the more ads the users will see and the more money Google will make.
My bet on why they started Chrome is that FF needed competition so FF6=IE6 don't happen. That is why I think Google will continue to backing FF.

I have always loved FF but Chrome are so much better today (that will hopefully level out with FF4 out of beta), that I have moved not only my browsing to Chrome from FF but also my mother, my sister (and her husband), my aunt, my friends and neighbors to Chrome. All in all, I'm responsible for around 15 computers move from FF to Chrome, and I have today less support regarding the browser (I estimate FF move made the IE support to 1/5 and Chrome made FF support in 1/2) as it is less "advanced" on the surface.

Re:Not really (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34475102)

Google doesn't think in terms of browser wars; they think in terms of advertising dollars.

How does Google get its advertising dollars? They put free stuff out on the web that people like (search, gmail, maps, blogs, youtube, etc.) and embed advertisements. Chrome doesn't have embedded ads, so if it isn't directly about advertising then what is the point of it? To raise the bar for browsers, specifically so browsers will better support all of the free stuff they give away. Because if they can make better free stuff, it channels more advertising dollars back to them.

Google doesn't care what browser you use as long as they get your advertising dollars, which is why they probably won't stop supporting Firefox anytime soon. As long as Google branding stays strong enough that people consider it the prime place on the Internet for free stuff, a specific product battle doesn't really matter to them. That same logic is why Microsoft initially gave away Internet Explorer for free. They didn't care about Netscape per se. They cared that the Microsoft experience stay unified. If anything, the browser war was just a proxy war for its moneymaker Microsoft Office. They needed the "default mode" for people and businesses to be that they run an all Microsoft PC.

EVERYTHING is a loss leader to Google EXCEPT for advertising. Occasionally I read people criticizing them for only having one profitable product (two if you count AdWords and AdSense separately), but that's entirely the point. They're using the exact model that radio and television have used for decades: free stuff, but you agree to a bit of advertising.

Re:Not really (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34475378)

That's also why Chrome is open source. Sure, Chrome has its googley hooks in that track some user activity (to better their advertising business). But it's built on Chromium, which doesn't have those hooks. It's not about good will to the privacy-oriented community.

They actually WANT their "competitors" in the browser wars to peek inside for better ways to do things. If Internet Explorer better supports gmail by stealing tricks from Chromium's source, Google wins. Granted they don't win as much as if IE was Google-oriented rather than Bing-oriented, but they still win.

Google will drop Firefox like a bad habit if it ever becomes unable to adequately support Google's web-based products or if Google decides Firefox's development won't keep pace with Google's future products. That's just not very likely to happen.

Re:Not really (1)

Nemyst (1383049) | more than 3 years ago | (#34475644)

Google doesn't have that much of an interest in pushing their own browser. What they want is a standards-compliant, efficient browser that can easily run ads on people without breaking down on half the sites or requiring hundreds of man-hours to code for specifically. They make money of their websites, not off Chrome itself, so it could be Firefox, Opera, Safari, Opera or even IE9 for all they care.

Re:Not really (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34477162)

Near as I can tell, Firefox market share has been at a standstill. Chrome has grown at around the pace IE has dropped. Whether that means users have gone IE -> Chrome or IE -> Firefox and Firefox -> Chrome is a bit open, but they're not losing.

That's right, yeah. I suspect it's the former scenario, but it's hard to tell.

However with Chrome in the 10-15% range you have to ask how long they'll keep backing Firefox and just go all out on developing Chrome.

Don't lose sight of the big picture - Chrome is a means to an end, not an end. The real goal is to make money online, not to gain browser market share. So even if Chrome has tons of market share, it will still make sense to continue the revenue deals with Firefox and Opera. If each such deal helps a tiny bit - and they do, especially the Firefox one - in the *real* competition, with Microsoft and other online rivals, then Google will continue them.

Also, Google is already 'all out' developing Chrome, just like Mozilla on Firefox and Microsoft on IE (these days). But that doesn't mean it will discontinue the revenue deals with other browser makers.

Re:Not really (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34478110)

I don't understand what's so great about Chrome. There is nothing as good as the Firefox extensions for AdBlock Plus, NoScript, tab mix, FlashBlock, etc. Chrome has copies of some of those but they suck compared to the real Firefox versions.

Copy and Paste Anyone? (1)

LifesABeach (234436) | more than 3 years ago | (#34474258)

Chrome is used only for page testing on my box. It appears that the youngsters at Google have marginalised the 'copy buffer.' Maybe someone who goes to AYSO [ayso-624.org] games, as a parent, should withhold some Google employee's allowance till that child can recite the definition of what "Copy, Cut and Paste" are used for. Until then, Chrome is Cripple-ware.

If you don't support Firefox... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34474260)

then you hate endangered animals...

Remember, you're either with the Red Pandas or the terrorists.
[/gov logic]

Re:If you don't support Firefox... (1)

couchslug (175151) | more than 3 years ago | (#34474700)

"then you hate endangered animals..."

I LOVE endangered animals. Well, given the right condiments.

Chrome rules and firefox drools (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34474300)

DEAL!

The Red Panda! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34474472)

Can't Canada's greatest superhero feed himself?

not Chrome (1)

Skylinux (942824) | more than 3 years ago | (#34474510)

To me Chrome is a cluster fuck of strange software design so the FF guys lost me to Opera.

Opera is faster, more stable and it allows me to place the tabs on the side of the screen instead of the top.
NoScript would be nice but I heard that something similar is in the works and until then I use site specific configuration to keep the really annoying ads at bay.

FF was nice when we had a gaping hole in the browser market but that hole has been plugged a while ago.

Re:not Chrome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34475230)

[opera] allows me to place the tabs on the side of the screen instead of the top.

Try the verttabbar addon for Firefox which provides that functionality.

Re:not Chrome (1)

Nemyst (1383049) | more than 3 years ago | (#34475658)

One word: Extensions. Firefox was specifically built to have minimal features out of the box.

Re:not Chrome (2)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 3 years ago | (#34479052)

Ironically, Opera has lost me to Chrome recently, and that after 9 years of being an avid Opera users. I just got sick of seeing too many broken websites (especially AJAX-enabled ones), and too many crashes. As it is, Chrome dev releases crash less on me than Opera stable I've been using.

The other issue is their interaction with the community. Opera does not have a public bug tracker at all - there is a form to fill, and it assigns a ticket number, but there's no way to track what is going on about it after you post it. The only way to know that it's fixed is to track the posts on Opera team blog and grep the changelogs. After seeing major layout and rendering bugs from others go unfixed for several major releases, and some of my minor but exceedingly annoying bugs completely ignored, I figured enough is enough.

Screw the Pandas (1)

salesgeek (263995) | more than 3 years ago | (#34475018)

I'd rather feed hungry people right now.

I'll be sticking with FF. (4, Insightful)

Beelzebud (1361137) | more than 3 years ago | (#34475246)

I'm sticking with Firefox. I trust the Mozilla Foundation more than I trust Google.

Re:I'll be sticking with FF. (3, Insightful)

tsa (15680) | more than 3 years ago | (#34475844)

I stick with FF because I like it and I'm not really interested in something else.

Re:I'll be sticking with FF. (1)

syousef (465911) | more than 3 years ago | (#34479604)

I'm sticking with Firefox. I trust the Mozilla Foundation more than I trust Google.

I'll stick with that bloated piece of shit memory hog Firefox that I usually kill from the task manager because the extensions give me capabilities I don't find in other browsers. I have no loyalty to or trust for any of the companies. Ever since they removed the ability to switch off "awesome bar" without an extension because THEY think they have the right to dictate how I should browse and what I should want, the Firefox team have totally lost any confidence or love I had for the product. In fact I don't think I've ever felt so negative about something I got for free in my life.

Re:I'll be sticking with FF. (1)

h3 (27424) | more than 3 years ago | (#34480194)

I stick to Firefox because the Chrome devs show a complete disregard for the Linux platform and its conventions by refusing to support middle-click loading of URLs:

http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=11612 [google.com]

Re:I'll be sticking with FF. (1)

thejynxed (831517) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483382)

Chrome/Chromium is being developed and marketed to work on PCs and smart devices. Guess which miniscule marketshare OS doesn't follow the conventions of the entire rest of the market and won't be supported by Chrome/Chromium devs because this OS uses ass-backwards "conventions".

Re:I'll be sticking with FF. (1)

h3 (27424) | more than 3 years ago | (#34483434)

I don't know what you mean by "entire rest of the market" but Mac OS never had a convention for middle-clicking insofar as it barely had conventions for right-clicking for the longest time so I don't know what you mean by "follow the conventions" since all 3 platforms had different behaviors regarding the matter.

Or do you think The Windows Way should be the only way? Is that what you meant?

Keep users (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34475730)

Good idea and if their marketing operation is successfull, they'll be able to keep people using it or they'll kill the saved pandas.

Pandas... javascript? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34479630)

Sorry I'm a bit late... did the red pandas get a JavaScript engine upgrade, resulting in a 100% performance boost?

Why I still use Firefox (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34480018)

Flashgot
Adblock Plus
BetterPrivacy
Firebug
selectivecookiedelete
sqlite manager

What?!? (1)

sharkey (16670) | more than 3 years ago | (#34481702)

No mastershifu tag?

C'mon Now (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34482296)

They're little and cute! Damn, I can't believe Slashdot would have such a tough crowd. Its only a download, and its not some spyware laden bullshit. I personally think its cool what they're trying to do. I've always said, I love animals but I fucking hate people, because people know better.

Re:C'mon Now (1)

BigSes (1623417) | more than 3 years ago | (#34482302)

Honestly, genocide bothers me less than those ASPCA commercials. If you can't love and take care of an animal, don't bother having one. I guess that goes for human children as well.

Re:C'mon Now (1)

RockDoctor (15477) | more than 3 years ago | (#34485256)

If you can't love and take care of an animal, don't bother having one. I guess that goes for human children as well.

But, children are animals. At least, they're not protozoans and they're not plants or fungi. So unless you've got some other classification than I've read, children are animals. Like cockroaches and adult humans.

Hmmm. I ask myself - are there any organisms which could move between "kingdoms" (in appearance, if not in biological reality) through development? I know that tunicates (chordates, like us, if not vertebrates) for a long time had their sessile adult forms described as unusual corals while their larvae are motile and (fairly obviously) chordate. There are some phyla of affinities I forget but which have developed into adults of a couple of dozen cells whose affinities as simplified "higher" animals has only recently been demonstrated ; I forget their names (Margulis' "five kingdoms" is beside the bed, but it's so deathly boring!), but they're obligate parasites on cephalopod gills.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?