×

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!

Official "Firefox With Bing" Released

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the looking-with-new-eyes dept.

Firefox 274

MrSeb writes "Mozilla is now distributing a version of Firefox that uses Bing as the default search provider instead of Google. Rest assured that this is a joint project, though: the creatively-named Firefox with Bing website is run by Microsoft, and both Mozilla and MS are clear that this is a joint venture. Now, don't get too excited — the default version of Firefox available from Mozilla.com is still backed by Google, and there's no mention of an alternative, Bingy download anywhere on the site — but it's worth noting that Mozilla has been testing Bing's capabilities using Test Pilot over the last couple of months, and the release of Firefox with Bing indicates that Mozilla is now confident in Bing's ability to provide a top-notch service to Firefox users. Mozilla might be readying a large-scale switch to Bing when its current contract with Google expires in November."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

274 comments

Bing (-1, Offtopic)

TechLA (2482532) | more than 2 years ago | (#37849664)

Bing actually is a good service. It's nothing like Live search previously, and they really worked to make it good. And this against the fact that Google has access to great amount of usage statistics. Search engines isn't about just algorithm - it's mostly about using data against those algorithms. And when you have a monopoly in search, you have access to much more data than your competitors, ultimately requiring them to spend much more effort, money and power to compete than the position you are in. This is also why Google collects so much data, from the links you choose in search results. If you've done your research, you notice they use javascript to show the real url in your status bar, but the links still go via Google or do a request in the background to log that info. It helps them collect that info and it makes them have a major power over their competitors.

Now, Bing and Microsoft actually went out and started fighting them, from a seriously underpowered position. And it's great they do, because otherwise Google would be the only search provider in the western world.

This is also the reason why Google is struggling in non-western world like China and Russia. They didn't get there by the time internet got wider usage, so they cannot get market share now.

Firefox with Google as default is a "join project" too. Mozilla depends on almost completely on revenue coming from Google. And unlike Slashdotters think, it's not a "here, take some money and make a great open source browser!". Firefox has (or, had) the market share required and Google wanted to be the default engine so they get users. And they pay a share of revenue generated by those Firefox. Just like Ubuntu, Fedora and other free Linux distros to generate their revenue. Not that's there's anything wrong with that, but usually Slashdotters try to somehow glorify Google. It's business as usual.

Personally, I use StartPage / IXQUICK [startpage.com] because it's European and values my privacy more.

Re:Bing (4, Informative)

Radres (776901) | more than 2 years ago | (#37849678)

More astroturfing from TechLA.

Re:Bing (-1, Offtopic)

bonch (38532) | more than 2 years ago | (#37849690)

Yes, anything praising the merits of a Google competitor is a conspiracy.

Re:Google competitor (3, Interesting)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 2 years ago | (#37849750)

But when that competitor is Microsoft the metagame changes. MS is famous for doing a little of everything, so they're always Fourth in a market, trying to look like "underdogs" while they still have the fading WinOffice monopoly.

Re:Bing (4, Informative)

DeathElk (883654) | more than 2 years ago | (#37849758)

Check out his history, it pretty much confirms Radres' claim.

Re:Bing (2, Informative)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#37849776)

Last time he popped up it was with another huge wall of copy paste garbage for WinPhone.

Re:Bing (-1, Troll)

TechLA (2482532) | more than 2 years ago | (#37849806)

Yes, let's lynch anyone who dares to say Microsoft actually does have some good products. WP7 is one of those, as is Bing and Windows 7. On the other hand, I absolutely hate Vista and Windows Mobile. The latter one, though, was good at it's time when you only had something like Symbian. iPhone changed a lot of that. And ultimately Vista wasn't a bad OS, it just sucked because MS had to change the driver and security model. But hardware manufacturers of course only would start working with it if Microsoft pushed Vista out. By the time Win7 came they had their drivers and software worked out.

Re:Bing (3, Informative)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#37849824)

Nope, just shills who copy paste in a wall of marketing drivel.

I like how you make excuses too, just like a shill. You could not even stick with your hate of products, you had to make excuses.

Re:Bing (-1, Offtopic)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#37849846)

Modding down is not to be done just because you disagree with the message.

Keep doing it though, I have tons of karma. Since I am not a shill.

Re:Bing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37850002)

Yeah, you're just a whiny little faggot.

Re:Bing (-1, Flamebait)

TechLA (2482532) | more than 2 years ago | (#37849904)

And you're delusional if you think someone actually cares to shill on slashdot. It's not like it isn't a common thing here though, I've been accused of shilling for very many companies just because I commented something positive about them. I must have shilled for Valve because I said Steam is really nice platform for PC games, as you can buy and download your games fast, friend lists work great (especially if you play coop games) and it is just much better done than any other platform. Obviously any sane person would think I was shilling and trying to promote DRM down their asses. Yes, because the way for happy life is to be negative about absolutely everything.

Re:Bing (1, Flamebait)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#37849938)

Nope, just when you use clearly prewritten content.
Shilling on public websites is big business these days. Political parties do it, the Chinese Government does it, and I am sure whoever is paying you is doing it too.

Steam is pretty nice, I love that it works so well in wine.

Re:Bing (4, Interesting)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 2 years ago | (#37849954)

I've been accused of shilling for very many companies just because I commented something positive about them

Since you pretty much only post positive stories about MS - nice, big, semi-articulate stories, as opposed to two sentence rants - yeah, you're a shill, and lying about it. Must be a sucky job, be paid to lie repeatedly.

Re:Bing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37850052)

Aha. What do we have here? Apple bitchboy that went missing!?

Re:Bing (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37849832)

I'm more confused about what is said over why it is said.

A good thesis has three parts: Who, What, and Why

Now, I see plenty of who and what, but no why.

"This is also the reason why Google is struggling in non-western world like China and Russia. They didn't get there by the time internet got wider usage, so they cannot get market share now." -- really? A company that doesn't like censoring and tried to find ways to not censor legally does not get common usage in a country that loves to censor? I'm talking about china and their homegrown Baidu [businessweek.com] as an example.

Saying that Microsoft started from an underdog position is fallacy. There were other search companies before Google existed and Microsoft didn't see any need to compete then. They made Google their enemy after they realized that there is a market for information. Just because they were late doesn't mean it is Google's fault. Maybe it was the lack of foresight with the internet? If memory serves me right, Windows 95 did not have WinSock at release and had to be installed with modem software.

----------------------
Related to the article though, I find the whole thing all-in-all pointless. They are giving food to the enemy here, and that is under the assumption that people choose the browser by choice of the default search engine. I can only assume they really want to get a foothold to edge out some of Google's territory down the road.

Re:Bing (2)

poity (465672) | more than 2 years ago | (#37849908)

Well, one thing I like about Bing is the bird's eye view maps. They're far more useful than Google's satellite view when I'm looking at large properties, or doing architecture models to scale. Guess that makes me an MS shill.

Re:Bing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37849726)

No one cares, go fuck yourself.

Re:Bing (2)

b0r1s (170449) | more than 2 years ago | (#37849862)

I have a hard time caring about this. The default is download is Google. An alternate download site offers Bing. Either way, the default is easy to change, who cares? Change is good. Embrace it.

Pretty easy to change the default (1)

Rob Y. (110975) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850066)

I don't get this. My Google-defaulted Mozilla makes it really easy to switch to Bing. It's right there in the pulldown list, which is way more than I can say for IE, which is supposed to make it easy to switch from the Bing default to another search engine, but which acutally puts you through some pretty tricky hoops to install another search engine from an MS website. When I tried it on a co-worker's machine, it wouldn't install (either because their IE version wasn't compatible or because the machine was locked down in such a way that prevented it. Anyway, the fact that Mozilla already offers a trivially easy way to switch says a lot about how important the built in default is. So there you go. Microsoft knows the built in default is vitally important, uses it in IE to boost Bing - way more so than Mozilla boosts Google, and still is willing to pay for default placement in Firefox. Wasn't there an antitrust suit?

Re:Bing (2)

somersault (912633) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850024)

Oh yeah, Microsoft having a monopoly on desktop computing and office suites is such an underpowered position to start from..

The real reason they're failing is because IE is still fucking lame. I prefer the IE6 UI over the crap that they have in 7 and up. And no, I don't use IE6.

I used to reorganise FFs toolbar to tidy it up. Chrome actually had things set up exactly the same as my FF custom arrangement by default, only without a search bar or menu to waste space. As soon as it had adblock, I was there.

When MS start showing that they have a clue about UIs (and web standards), I might start caring. Win7's task dock thing is nice enough, and they finally caught up to Unix with users being able to run unprivileged by default and boost to root only when necessary - but all the control panels are a mess. Ribbonised apps are an even bigger mess. I get that MS are trying, but they're kind of like a braindamaged person brute forcing a puzzle, trying all of the different shaped pegs in different orientations, only managing to get one through the hole every now and then by sheer bloody mindedness.

Re:Bing (1)

the linux geek (799780) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850186)

IE9's rendering engine is pretty good, but the new UI is strange and (imho) not very good. It's kind of a pity, because it's reasonably fast.

Re:Bing (-1, Troll)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850242)

Only on Slashdot would your first post, on-topic, sensible post be modded off topic.
Bing is good. Often better than Google. Maps and video search are far better for example, and general results are more consistent (because there's much less targeting/tracking/location-based influence).

Whats this "instead of Google" shit? (1, Interesting)

phonewebcam (446772) | more than 2 years ago | (#37849674)

I thought they merely skinned Google [blogspot.com] and called it their own?

Re:Whats this "instead of Google" shit? (1, Informative)

bonch (38532) | more than 2 years ago | (#37849704)

Re:Whats this "instead of Google" shit? (1)

phonewebcam (446772) | more than 2 years ago | (#37849740)

torsorophy buddy, aka irrefutable smoking gun. Try googling it [bing.com] .

Re:Whats this "instead of Google" shit? (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 2 years ago | (#37849884)

Try reading what he linked to.. they copy everything, not just Google. So yes, they copy, but not in the way that you allege.

They also auto-correct spelling without notifying you that they've done so, so torsorophy is not a smoking gun. Their honeypot experiment was much better proof of copying. It's not a bad idea for improving search relevancy, but pretty creepy at the same time. Next time I see an MS shill complaining about Google's datamining/privacy policies, I'll have to point this one out.

Re:Whats this "instead of Google" shit? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37850022)

torsorophy buddy, aka irrefutable smoking gun. Try googling it [bing.com] .

Except not because Google purposely fed this data to Microsoft through their toolbar.

Re:Whats this "instead of Google" shit? (2, Insightful)

andydread (758754) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850056)

Wow.
Google create a fake query and it showed up on Bing. You and TechLA are a obviously shills. The only people in the tech world that believes google made this up is you

From Google:
We created about 100 “synthetic queries”—queries that you would never expect a user to type, such as [hiybbprqag]. As a one-time experiment, for each synthetic query we inserted as Google’s top result a unique (real) webpage which had nothing to do with the query. Below is an example:

To be clear, the synthetic query had no relationship with the inserted result we chose—the query didn’t appear on the webpage, and there were no links to the webpage with that query phrase. In other words, there was absolutely no reason for any search engine to return that webpage for that synthetic query. You can think of the synthetic queries with inserted results as the search engine equivalent of marked bills in a bank.

We gave 20 of our engineers laptops with a fresh install of Microsoft Windows running Internet Explorer 8 with Bing Toolbar installed. As part of the install process, we opted in to the “Suggested Sites” feature of IE8, and we accepted the default options for the Bing Toolbar

We asked these engineers to enter the synthetic queries into the search box on the Google home page, and click on the results, i.e., the results we inserted. We were surprised that within a couple weeks of starting this experiment, our inserted results started appearing in Bing. Below is an example: a search for [hiybbprqag] on Bing returned a page about seating at a theater in Los Angeles. As far as we know, the only connection between the query and result is Google’s result page (shown above).

Re:Whats this "instead of Google" shit? (0, Troll)

TechLA (2482532) | more than 2 years ago | (#37849712)

No they haven't and that lie needs to stop. The reason why the tests Google did showed within Bing when Bing toolbar was installed because if users opt-in to it, it collects usage data on what links people click and their anchor texts. The reasoning for this being, if user thinks that the link is relevant, then it can be uses only one vector in Bing. It's only a really small part of it, but because Google used non-existing words within links they obviously didn't show any other results than Google's. And this behavior isn't limited to Bing only - Google uses tons of similar usage analysis to determine search page rankings and to gather information about new sites and pages.

Re:Whats this "instead of Google" shit? (0)

phonewebcam (446772) | more than 2 years ago | (#37849794)

"We gave 20 of our engineers laptops with a fresh install of Microsoft Windows running Internet Explorer 8 with Bing Toolbar installed. As part of the install process, we opted in to the “Suggested Sites” feature of IE8, and we accepted the default options for the Bing Toolbar.

We asked these engineers to enter the synthetic queries into the search box on the Google home page, and click on the results, i.e., the results we inserted. We were surprised that within a couple weeks of starting this experiment, our inserted results started appearing in Bing. Below is an example: a search for [hiybbprqag] on Bing returned a page about seating at a theater in Los Angeles. As far as we know, the only connection between the query and result is Google’s result page (shown above)."

These fresh Windows installs had additional seeded toolbars? I call BS, and if it was a lie this page [blogspot.com] would not have been up for so long, knocking back every m$ attempt to wriggle out of it you can come up with.
But please, keep trying - watching m$ astroturfers squirm this way is hilarious.

Re:Whats this "instead of Google" shit? (1, Informative)

TechLA (2482532) | more than 2 years ago | (#37849826)

We gave 20 of our engineers laptops with a fresh install of Microsoft Windows running Internet Explorer 8 with Bing Toolbar installed.

What part of this you don't understand?

Re:Whats this "instead of Google" shit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37849930)

So, there is no issue that with the Bing Toolbar, searches done through other providers (in this case Google) show up in Bing? This means that Bing uses Google search results, or are you insinuating that Bing bar altered the page on the Google search results so Google used their results?

Re:Whats this "instead of Google" shit? (1)

DJLuc1d (1010987) | more than 2 years ago | (#37849988)

Oh, ok. So it wasn't the bing search engine taking the results of a google search and putting it into the bing search engine! It was the bing toolbar! How silly to accuse bing of blatant search result theft. They aren't stealing Google's results.... they are just tracking what users click on when they get google results, and putting it into their own search results. Crazy to call that theft, huh? Taking someone else's work, putting it into yours, and then calling it your own.

Re:Whats this "instead of Google" shit? (1)

andresa (2485876) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850116)

Google does exactly the same, via Analytics. On Slashdot too. They just have a larger market share on it (because Analytics is installed in so many pages).

Re:Whats this "instead of Google" shit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37850146)

It's the Google engineers who were providing data. What the toolbar collects is information on what people deem relevant by clicking on it. It's no different from PageRank.

So yeah, they didn't take Google's search data, they took the furious clickfrauding of the engineers.

Re:Whats this "instead of Google" shit? (1)

QuasiSteve (2042606) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850222)

Taking someone else's work

True, true. The question is, however, who is the 'someone else' and what 'work' are you 'taking' (and yeah, it's not theft - it's not even copyright infringement for that matter).

Let's go with the either pro-Google- or anti-Microsoft-centric view first and say the 'someone else' is Google and the 'work' is the results Google returns when searching for a query. How does Google get those results? Well, from the page domain set up by the domain owner, from the page title set up by the webmaster, from the page's content set up by the content creators be that the webmaster, editors, third party posts, whatever and of course links to that site created by yet other people. Which part of this is Google's 'work'? The part that surmises that site A ranks above site B. That 'work' however, is not what is taken.

The other view, however, you've already pointed out yourself:

they are just tracking what users click on when they get google results

So now the 'someone else' is the user and the 'work' is what that user clicks on; In essence, a measure of how likely a given result is actually what the user is looking for when presented with results for a given search query. Is that 'work' Google's? Not really (although I wouldn't doubt they, too, rank results in part based on users' clicks on results) as Google doesn't know what result a user clicks on until a user has done so. There's no 'work' from Google involved in that decision process.

So if the 'work' taken is that of the user's, and the user opted in, what's the problem?
That the user's list of options was generated by Google, rather than that it was any other URL, search or not, at the time the Bing Toolbar made its associations?

Google may have cried foul at the time - with interesting timing - but I'd be somewhat disappointed if Google didn't do the exact same thing with their toolbar and/or Chrome.

Re:Whats this "instead of Google" shit? (1)

R4nneko (1194727) | more than 2 years ago | (#37849842)

You mean the Bing Toolbar which is explicitly stated as being installed?

Re:Whats this "instead of Google" shit? (0)

Ragun (1885816) | more than 2 years ago | (#37849892)

Please mod parent up, we can't allow distortions like this to persist. I am no fan of Microsoft, but we should stay away from politics level hearsay.

Re:Whats this "instead of Google" shit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37849714)

I'd rather eat my own vomit than use Bing after encountering a number of web toolbars which automatically replace my default search with Bing.

Re:Whats this "instead of Google" shit? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37849916)

For a minute I thought you were talking about Firefox and Chrome.

Thank you for helping (1)

stcdm33 (1942322) | more than 2 years ago | (#37849700)

Thanks so much. I keep teetering between a full blown switch to Chrome or staying with Firefox. You've finally helped me decide :) Thank you so much, Chrome here I come.

Can Mozilla piss off their users any more? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37849784)

Every move that Mozilla has made lately has done nothing but piss off their long-time users.

First it was not fixing the memory usage and performance problems that have plagued Firefox for years now. This is something that users keep begging Mozilla to fix, but it never happens. Firefox is always slower than Chrome, Safari, Opera and now even the more recent versions of IE!

Then there are the Firefox UI changes they've made with recent releases that only make it so much harder to use Firefox. Please bring back the menus! Please bring back the status bar! Please show the protocol in the URL bar again! Please reverse any design decision made by a so-called "UI designer". They don't help usability! Hell, even Thunderbird has been affected by this crap.

Recently they went all silly with the version numbering and the release schedules. Now Firefox is unusable for enterprise users, and home users are getting damn confused with what version they are using or should be using. It doesn't help that extensions break very often now, too.

Now there's this Bing nonsense.

Why does Mozilla go out of their way to ignore their users? Why do they go out of their way to mess with these projects that don't actually fix any of the serious problems that users point out time and time again, for years and years?

Re:Can Mozilla piss off their users any more? (2)

SScorpio (595836) | more than 2 years ago | (#37849886)

Why does Mozilla go out of their way to ignore their users? Why do they go out of their way to mess with these projects that don't actually fix any of the serious problems that users point out time and time again, for years and years?

Chrome isn't any better with the developers holier than though attitudes. There have been feature requests that have been very highly voted for they they just keep turning down even though it would be a simple toggle on and off feature that could default to off. One such example is type ahead search which removes the need to press ctrl-f to search inline text. It is possible for some sites to have issues with, but I find it very useful, there is an extension for Chrome which worked about 20% of the time. Firefox has actually made great strides in 7.0 for memory usage, and I still have never seen this reported performance issues people have complained about.

Firefox has its issues, but I moved to Chrome after all the crashes in Firefox that started in the 6.0 release continued in 7.0.1. However, Chrome was very limited especially in regards to Ad Block Plus and Noscript. Ad Block on Chrome downloads everything and then hides elements, so a hacked payload image is still on your machine, Notscript was no where near the level of functionality of Noscript and this is due to Chrome not exposing critical parts in an API that would make this very useful extension work.

I wish Firefox would move to a multi threaded application like Chrome so that a crashed tab doesn't kill everything, but after about three weeks using only Chrome I gave up. Uninstalled Firefox and killed every trace of data from application data directories before a clean install and reinstall of all of my extensions and the crashes have stopped.

If you don't like the UI changes to Firefox, Chrome also isn't a solution as most of those features are just mirroring Chrome. One saving grace of Chrome was its excellent web developer tools. Firebug on Firefox has been slowly become unusable, but Chrome's built in tools are better and work perfectly.

Re:Can Mozilla piss off their users any more? (1)

hawaiian717 (559933) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850244)

Ad Block on Chrome downloads everything and then hides elements

Actually, this was fixed and AdBlock for Chrome has prevented ads from downloading starting with version 2.0.

Re:Thank you for helping (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37849902)

I don't understand the reason for your decision to change.

This is an option that is just like the option that Chrome presents when you open it for the first time asking if you want to use Google, Bing, or Yahoo for searching. The Google option isn't going away, and is still the default.

"CHROME LETS ME CHOOSE BING? THAT IS TEH EVILS! No Chrome for me!"

Re:Thank you for helping (1)

the linux geek (799780) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850212)

Wait, because Microsoft makes a repackaged Firefox with Bing as the default, it somehow ruins your enjoyment of Firefox itself, with defaults to Google? What the fuck?

Re:Thank you for helping (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37850216)

Nice lips to reach googles ass from here. Have fun in your blown out fanboyism crash.

Other Engines? (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 2 years ago | (#37849708)

I don't get the whole point of this version.

Is it some mix of Anti-Google, so "we must go to Bing, which somehow is related to former Yahoo Search?"

What about the third party providers, ones who could use the traffic metrics? Ask.com comes to mind. Or StartPage that (supposedly) doesn't record your ip address. Or DuckDuckGo. Or something.

Why are there only like 12 players in all of Tech?

Re:Other Engines? (3, Informative)

bhtooefr (649901) | more than 2 years ago | (#37849764)

The whole point of that version is, "Microsoft paid Mozilla enough to release a Binged version of Firefox".

Most of Mozilla's income comes from Google paying Mozilla for every time someone searches Google using the Firefox start page or the search bar.

Re:Other Engines? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37849894)

I'm sure Mozilla would be willing to engage with more providers. When they cough up with the amount of cash Microsoft and Google can offer you might see it eventuate. After all, Mozilla has engineers developing their software, those engineers demand money for their time.

Re:Other Engines? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37850032)

I dont get it either. It is almost like they are targeting people who dont like google but like bing and firefox (but not ie) AND are not smart enough to change the default search page? That sounds like a very small segment of the population...

But hey whatever...

DuckDuckGo (1)

gellenburg (61212) | more than 2 years ago | (#37849710)

I'd much rather see a version of Firefox that used DuckDuckGo by default (http://ddg.gg)

Then set it to duckduckgo! (1)

bigsexyjoe (581721) | more than 2 years ago | (#37849746)

I set mine to duckduckgo. I'm pretty happy.

Re:Then set it to duckduckgo! (1)

gellenburg (61212) | more than 2 years ago | (#37849772)

Me too, but that's not quite exactly what I said:

I'd much rather see a version of Firefox that used DuckDuckGo by default (http://ddg.gg)

Re:Then set it to duckduckgo! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37849796)

How is the firefox project going to fund itself like that?

Show your support for the Duck :) (2)

gQuigs (913879) | more than 2 years ago | (#37849840)

Two ways to show your support..
To Firefox [getsatisfaction.com]
To Ubuntu [ubuntu.com]

DuckDuckGo is more in line with Mozilla's Manifesto [mozilla.org] in that it:

Re:Show your support for the Duck :) (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850108)

It also probably doesnt provide financial support to mozilla, which they need far more than you need to be saved from the effort of setting your own search engine.

Unless of course those 3 clicks are worth millions of dollars to you, in which case Im sure you could convince Mozilla to switch engines by providing said financial incentive.

"indicates that Mozilla is now confident in Bing" (3, Insightful)

gyepi (891047) | more than 2 years ago | (#37849728)

.. or that MicroSoft wrote a decent check to Mozilla to start distributing Firefox with Bing as well.

Re:"indicates that Mozilla is now confident in Bin (-1)

TechLA (2482532) | more than 2 years ago | (#37849756)

Just like Google then. And actually Bing users tend to be from more wealthier demographics than most Google users, so it does make business sense to them.

Re:"indicates that Mozilla is now confident in Bin (1)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 2 years ago | (#37849858)

Yeah, you just made that up. Or did your PR department tell you to write that?

Re:"indicates that Mozilla is now confident in Bin (1)

IANAAC (692242) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850110)

Just like Google then. And actually Bing users tend to be from more wealthier demographics than most Google users, so it does make business sense to them.

If true, you should have no trouble backing up that claim with some verifiable data.

Go on... we're waiting.

Good Timing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37849762)

Just as I was reading this summary, Firefox popped up with a "could not sync" message. Methinks other things are more pressing than partnering with Microsoft.

Re:Good Timing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37849928)

Believe it or not, Mozilla and its army of open source developers are capable of doing many things at once.

Who is this for? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37849778)

Folks who love Microsoft products but not IE? People who don't trust Google with their search data but think it's safe with Bing? Who would want this?

Re:Who is this for? (1)

hawguy (1600213) | more than 2 years ago | (#37849866)

Folks who love Microsoft products but not IE? People who don't trust Google with their search data but think it's safe with Bing? Who would want this?

I assume that this is for the Mozilla Foundation and they are the ones that want it because MS is paying them for it. MS probably promised them a larger share of the advertising revenue than they were getting from Google.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, but they should just come out and say it.

Re:Who is this for? (1)

h4rr4r (612664) | more than 2 years ago | (#37849912)

A bigger cut of less searches is not the sort of deal you want to make.

The Mozilla Foundation does not understand their target market I think. Such a deal will cost them users. Users that will switch to Chrome.

Re:Who is this for? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37849974)

From here it looks like the Mozilla Foundation understands perfectly that they have to negotiate a contract with Google in a few weeks. "We'd rather not switch to Bing, but if we must..." is a much better bargaining position than "please don't kill us with a combination of Chrome and a lack of funding."

Re:Who is this for? (1)

not already in use (972294) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850120)

Such a deal will cost them users.

Contrary to popular belief here at slashdot, the vast majority of people don't hold a 20 year grudge against a company that has been releasing quality software as of late.

Re:Who is this for? (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850132)

Users who prefer a highly customizeable, performant browser in line with FOSS principles, but who are so fickle that they cant be bothered to choose their own search engine?

Come on, I dont use Bing, but its not AWFUL, and it takes all of 3 seconds to switch to google or whatever else you might want. Mozilla needs money, this gets them money, and the cost to users is negligible.

Re:Who is this for? (1)

LinuxIsGarbage (1658307) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850070)

I'd say there's a fair number of people who are satisfied or prefer WindowsXP/Windows 7 but use Chrome or Firefox. In fact I think the internal statistics of Microsoft employees places IE usage low. As well as a high penetration of iPhone.

Just making sure Google is listening... (5, Interesting)

Muerte2 (121747) | more than 2 years ago | (#37849798)

My guess is this is a shot across the bow of Google. Letting Google know that it's pretty easy for them to switch the default search traffic to Bing is just good business. I'm sure Microsoft is going to be bidding pretty heavily to get Firefox's search user base.

In the end it's just going to keep Google honest and make sure they pay a fair price for the search traffic Firefox sends them. I think Google pays something like $60 or $70 million a year for all the Firefox user searches. That's chump change to someone like Google. I suspect after this, the next contract renewal might be a higher number.

Re:Just making sure Google is listening... (3, Interesting)

phonewebcam (446772) | more than 2 years ago | (#37849836)

Yeah? Even now Chrome has overtaken FF in the UK [reuters.com] with the writing clearly on the wall for the rest of the world?

Re:Just making sure Google is listening... (2)

Muerte2 (121747) | more than 2 years ago | (#37849864)

I think we're settling in to a browser renaissance here. With all the major browsers being mostly equivalent feature wise people will just choose what works best for them. I suspect we'll have a three way race for browser usage between Chrome, IE, and Firefox. I suspect the market share will level out, and there won't be a CLEAR winner like there was when IE6 dominated.

Even if Chrome gets market share Firefox will still have its place, and still be relevant.

Re:Just making sure Google is listening... (2)

arose (644256) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850204)

Please explain how the UK is any more representative of "the rest of the world" than, say, Germany [statcounter.com] .

Re:Just making sure Google is listening... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37850252)

By then FireFox will be the #3 browser behind IE and Chrome - not much leverage.
http://gs.statcounter.com/

I've never used Bing... (2)

Muerte2 (121747) | more than 2 years ago | (#37849850)

I must admit I haven't really used Bing much until I read this article. Just as a test today I set my default search engine to Bing and it's surprisingly decent! It's a very decent alternative to Google now. Seeing as Microsoft loses money [searchenginewatch.com] on search I don't mind using it either.

With Google being as big as it is, and having it's finger in EVERYTHING, makes me nervous. Having a viable alternative just serves to keep them honest.

Quick! Play the Imperial March theme song!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37849856)

I find your lack of faith ... disturbing!

I've actually been using bing lately (5, Interesting)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | more than 2 years ago | (#37849860)

I love google as a company. I love android, I love gmail, and I love google calendar. I use and heavily rely on all three.

However google's search engine as of recent is very disappointing, largely as a result of a few so called "fixes."

Google recently did away with the ability to add + before a word to prevent from using synonyms for that word, so when you want to do a literal search for anything, you MUST surround it in quotes. Very annoying.

I've been finding that as of late, google appears to be omitting some kewords from my search. The page summary doesn't include some of the words, and worse is that when you go to the page, and hit ctrl-f, you can't even find one of the omitted keyword! Frustrating as hell.

The most annoying, is when you type a search term with google instant, and sometimes when you arrow back to inline edit your search while instant is coming up, or if you accidentally move the mouse over one of the search suggestions, it removes your original search and replaces it with one of the search suggestions, causing you to have to re-type the whole thing! And turning off google instant isn't a reliable solution, because when you lose the cookie, or move to a computer that doesn't have one, you have to go and turn it off again.

I've been using bing lately and thankfully it doesn't suffer from these problems. I'd like to go back to google, but until they can solve these problems I'll be using bing for a while.

Quack (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37849880)

Who cares which 'default' they ship releases with, it really isn't hard to change anyway. Besides theres better alternatives out there which don't track your every move: https://duckduckgo.com/

Not even if you paid me (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37849896)

I wouldn't use Bing even if they were the last search engine and the alternative was Alta Vista or gopher....

Bing (0)

redkcir (1431605) | more than 2 years ago | (#37849946)

Well that explains why my search engine changed. It looks like Firefox did a drive by update over night and switched my settings. I have tried Bing, but wasn't that impressed with it. I still find Google gives me better results. And that, after all, is what counts when using a search engine.

People still use Firefox? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37850004)

This story would've bothered me a year ago, but I doubt that we'll be seeing "Chrome powered by Bing" any time soon. #techhipsterism

Indicates what? (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850026)

and the release of Firefox with Bing indicates that Mozilla is now confident in Bing's ability to provide a top-notch service to Firefox users.

I think it clearly indicates that they are willing to take Microsoft's money to distribute a product with different defaults, I don't think its all that clear that it means anything more.

Just what Bing needs... (1)

gstrickler (920733) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850030)

Becoming the default search engine on a secondary version of another browser with a declining market share. Is MS trying to implode or are they just clueless?

Re:Just what Bing needs... (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850090)

Becoming the default search engine on a secondary version of another browser with a declining market share. Is MS trying to implode or are they just clueless?

Maybe MS is smart about the future, and TFS is wrong about the direction this points. Maybe its not about the future of Mozilla -- dumping Google -- but instead about the future of Microsoft's browser. Maybe after testing the water with "Firefox with Bing", MS just adopts that in place of IE. Given the plethora of devices with browser, Microsoft's waning borwser share even in the desktop browser market and its miniscule browser share everywhere else, maybe spending the money to maintain a browser in-house just isn't worth it anymore given how weak of a lever it has become for Microsoft's other products.

Google Sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37850234)

Google has allowed a good business model to be corrupted by greed. F Google. Google's search engine sucks nowadays. It searches crap, it produces crap. It doesn't understand even/especially a site like "Nextag" is THE FING PROBLEM. Google has allowed global private equity investment firms to run their business. Google has already been pwned and it doesn't even know it.

Not about user experience (1)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850258)

release of Firefox with Bing indicates that Mozilla is now confident in Bing's ability to provide a top-notch service to Firefox users.

Users can set whatever search engine they want, this has nothing to do with "Bing's abilities". The biggest income of browser developers comes from search sites paying to be default. In this case, Microsoft payed more than Google.

what is this shit?! (2)

Gravis Zero (934156) | more than 2 years ago | (#37850274)

i've used mozilla stuff since 2002. i used mozilla then pheonix then firefox. i was around for the good and the bad but this tears it. seriously, it seems like 2011 is the year of bat shit crazy decisions over at mozilla. nay, 2011 is the year of bat shit crazy decisions at mozilla. all mozilla has done lately is follow everything chrome does and now this! what is this, google envy?

the people steering mozilla need a swift kick in the pants because they are acting like a drunken bard out on sunset boulevard. (i would like to apologize to all the drunken bards on sunset boulevard that i may have offended.)

What's wrong witb Bing again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37850286)

There isn't anything wrong with Bing as far as I can tell. Works for me.

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...