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!

Mozilla's 3 Big Bets To Keep the Web Open

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the mozilla-also-suffering-from-gambling-addiction dept.

Firefox 88

GMGruman writes "Savio Rodrigues writes that Google's latest agreement with Mozilla will ironically fund three new areas of competition between Google and Mozilla — areas that users and open source advocates should cheer on as they will make the Web both better and more open. The alternative, he says, is more control by the likes of Google, Facebook, and Apple."

cancel ×

88 comments

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

dude! (0)

Cyko_01 (1092499) | more than 2 years ago | (#38476986)

dickbag move dude. dickbag move.

Re:dude! (3, Interesting)

shellbeach (610559) | more than 2 years ago | (#38477542)

dickbag move dude. dickbag move.

Quite the opposite, actually. It's often been argued [abovethecrowd.com] that a major reason for Google's purchase and development of Android was to safeguard Google's search empire. Except from an ad-revenue-generating sense (and possibly also a kick-Apple-up-the-arse sense :) Google doesn't care whether you're using Android or not. What's of primary importance is that you're using their search tools to generate them income through advertising. Android is simply a very good means to protect that ad revenue castle.

A boot-to-Gecko OS that promotes Google search is a much better option (as far as Google is concerned) than a boot-to-Gecko OS that promotes Bing or somebody else. I'm sure they'd much rather Android stayed dominant, but it doesn't hurt them to have allies in their camp rather than enemies outside the gates.

Re:dude! (0)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#38479150)

Frankly I just wish they'd go back to their mission statement of making a fast and lean browser because its gotten kinda ridiculous with the memory and CPU spiking, at least on Windows.

I mean we've just been given WebOS and so far at least Google has been pretty damned open with android (ts the carriers you have to worry about anyway) so do we REALLY need yet ANOTHER cell phone OS? That gives us RIM, WinPhone, Android, WebOS and then whatever it is they run on the lower end phones (Java maybe?) so I don't see how with a field that crowded they are gonna do any real good and if they can't get a major phone manufacturer to pick it up it'll be dead as MeeGo anyway.

Finally lets not forget the ONLY reason Google gives them any money at all is because they have a large enough market to make it worth the money but as we saw in Sept [slashdot.org] there numbers are going DOWN and not up.

So wouldn't the smart move be to concentrate on the browser and get the numbers back up instead of going off in a bunch of different directions?

Re:dude! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38479234)

Frankly I just wish they'd go back to their mission statement of making a fast and lean browser because its gotten kinda ridiculous with the memory and CPU spiking, at least on Windows.

But this isn't their mission. From http://www.mozilla.org/about/mission.html [mozilla.org] : Mozilla's mission is to promote openness, innovation and opportunity on the web.

These 3 "big bets" are perfectly aligned with that mission.

Re:dude! (1, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#38479782)

Notice you had to post AC, that is pretty much all you can do with all the flag waving fangirls around here. And I was talking about their ORIGINAL mission, the one they announced when they switched from the suite to Firefox? Forget that one? hell their whole selling point was "to make the browser leaner and meaner, to get rid of cruft and old code, to make a truly great browser".

Well considering how many people are running to the hills and how even some of the Linux distros are switching to Chromium for default I'd say that mission is a big giant fail wouldn't you? I mean when i can sit on my XP box and literally watch the CPU jump with each letter typed in a fricking text box to steal the chorus of an old K's Choice song "Something's Wrong". I have to support everything from netbooks and older office machines to the latest multicore and the simple facts are 1.- Firefox runs like shit now on AMD, especially on AMD netbooks and single cores. 2.- It sucks the life right out of netbooks thanks to all the CPU spiking, 3.- Sucks RAM like a drunk sucking booze at a free minibar, hell just try leaving it running overnight and write down how much memory it was using when you left and how much it was using when it came back and watch the numbers jump!, 4.-In my own tests I've found it to be pretty much unsuitable for purpose on anything less than a 3GHz P4 with HT and even then its a little iffy, dual cores are the minimum to get some performance across the board!

Its a fricking browser folks, but its getting like that old Emacs joke about "Its an OS that has a half ass editor included" only in this case its a half ass browser. its not like I'm the only one that has noticed it either and I bet if everyone here were to post their horror stories of FF the list would be longer than your arm!

So waste your mod points, stick your fingers in your ears and go "la la la' but that won't change reality which is FF numbers are dropping like a rock FOR A REASON folks. The whole reason i had to find an alternative browser was because I got tired of customers bitching about how damned slow and sucky FF was, with the CPU spiking getting fricking ridiculous not to mention the version numbers spinning like a top and breaking extensions and I was afraid they'd go back to IE.

Frankly I predict if they don't focus on their core business they damned well better hope they can become an OS developer because when the contract is up again they won't have enough users to sell their search engine rights for a dollar!

Re:dude! (2)

Spliffster (755587) | more than 2 years ago | (#38480834)

Notice you had to post AC, that is pretty much all you can do with all the flag waving fangirls around here. And I was talking about their ORIGINAL mission, the one they announced when they switched from the suite to Firefox? Forget that one? hell their whole selling point was "to make the browser leaner and meaner, to get rid of cruft and old code, to make a truly great browser".

Parent is right. The mission of the Mozilla Foundation is to promote standards. You are talking about one product of the Mozilla Foundation: Firefox. Back when it was still called Phoenix it was a pet project of David Hyatt (now the safari guy) and then Ben Goodger. The goal was to have a simple browser with an XML language to define the UI combined with javascript and XPCOM. Compared to the Mozilla Suite (which had everything but the kitchen sink) Firefox back then was really lean, fast and configurable/extensible.

Cheers,
-S

Re:dude! (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#38483882)

Riddle me this: how will they fulfill that mission if they are dead broke hmmm? ALL of their money comes from one thing and one thing only, and that is how many people use their browser. As was documented here on slashdot their numbers are in freefall and the Google deal is only good for 3 years. So how do they fulfill that mission if the next time the deal comes around Google doesn't want their search? Hell the way their numbers are falling they may not even get MSFT to buy their search as they are gonna end up with the same numbers as "Bob's browser' if the trend continues!

So I stand by my statement: If they don't get back to basics they damned well better become an OS company because their not gonna have enough users in 3 years to get even the spammers to buy their search rights!

The "big" bets: (4, Informative)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 2 years ago | (#38476998)

Since the summary didn't provide this, the allegedly large bets are:

1. An alternative to Android
2. An alternative to OpenID
3. An App store

Re:The "big" bets: (5, Informative)

asa (33102) | more than 2 years ago | (#38477098)

It's not quite as simple as that. A better bulleted list would be:

1. An alternative to the proprietary mobile stacks which control the full vertical from hardware to app stores. An open Web stack based on real standards.
2. An alternative to Facebook Connect, Sign in with Twitter, and Google Accounts. A web-wide ID system that doesn't depend on one particular provider.
3. A set of standards for Web applications discovery, monitization, and installation and an implementation that will work across all platforms.

Re:The "big" bets: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38477138)

2. An alternative to Facebook Connect, Sign in with Twitter, and Google Accounts. A web-wide ID system that doesn't depend on one particular provider.

Isn't OpenID the alternative to that? What went wrong?

Re:The "big" bets: (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38477446)

Try reading http://identity.mozilla.com/post/7669886219/how-browserid-differs-from-openid [mozilla.com] for the difference between BrowserID and OpenID.

TLDR: OpenID is harder to integrate into the browser, and needed a third party for every login (meaning it just swapped Facebook, Twitter or Google with someone else that could potentially track you).

Re:The "big" bets: (1)

no-body (127863) | more than 2 years ago | (#38479646)

Wouldn't a web browser on a device which connects through your own proxy server work?
With any decent desktop browser one can connect via proxy to a secure tunnel which you control.
Does not seem to exist on cell/tablets due to greedy device SW vendor lockins - right?

Re:The "big" bets: (1)

neyla (2455118) | more than 2 years ago | (#38492858)

"someone" is key though. OpenID is open and distributed, so yes you need an account with *someone*, but the key distinction is that you are free to pick anyone you want as your provider, and if none of them suits your needs, you are even free to set up your own provider. (no it's not difficult)

This is parallell to email: *someone* must run a mailserver for you, but you're free to pick who, and if none of them suits your needs, you're free to set up your own email-server.

Re:The "big" bets: (3, Informative)

metrometro (1092237) | more than 2 years ago | (#38479424)

The core innovation is that BrowserID does not require you to phone home to your certificate authority (say, Google) every time you want to look at a page. Instead, it passes certificates around in a way that allows the site (DonkeyPronz, or whatever) to check that the cert is valid, but does not reveal to Google (or Mozilla, or whoever is running the cert authorty) which of the many BrowserID users is opening the page. This is a fundamental difference.

Re:The "big" bets: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38477444)

1. An alternative to the proprietary mobile stacks which control the full vertical from hardware to app stores. An open Web stack based on real standards.

Soooo... Android on open hardware.

Re:The "big" bets: (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38478662)

How are they going to do all this while ignoring 12+ year-old usability bugs in order to implement the latest Chrome imitation feature?

Re:The "big" bets: (1)

Turnerj (2478588) | more than 2 years ago | (#38477302)

And their alternative to OpenID is currently called BrowserID. Very creative name indeed.

Re:The "big" bets: (1)

similar_name (1164087) | more than 2 years ago | (#38477364)

EgoID would be cool.

Obligatory XKCD for #2 (1)

majesticmerc (1353125) | more than 2 years ago | (#38477432)

2. An alternative to OpenID

http://xkcd.com/927/ [xkcd.com]

Re:Obligatory XKCD for #2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38477866)

Snarky, but no. OpenID is more flexible at the cost of usability (particularly, it was not designed with browser integration in mind). BrowserID is more user-friendly and more privacy protecting in its default configuration (OpenID is plenty private... if you run your own OpenID server). They are different designs for different reasons.

Re:Obligatory XKCD for #2 (1)

stickyboot (845510) | more than 2 years ago | (#38483168)

BrowserID is actually quite promising due to some really interesting design decisions. Plus it actually really usable (unlike openID) and decentralized by design (unlike facebook or google login integration). I recommend this video to learn a little about it: http://identity.mozilla.com/post/13459806252/another-introduction-to-browserid-for-webfwd [mozilla.com]

Re:The "big" bets: (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38477706)

1. Windows Phone 7
2. Windows Live ID
3. Windows Store

Re:The "big" bets: (1)

teh31337one (1590023) | more than 2 years ago | (#38479162)

1. Android
2. Google Account
3. Chrome Store

Re:The "big" bets: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38481124)

Looking for alternatives you have to be quite desperate to come up with those 3 solutions to what ever your problem with the "standards" are

Re:The "big" bets: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38481222)

The 3rd comes as a bit of surprise, since i think that HTML 5 actually would mean the end to apps tied to a specific platform.

ACs 1 big bet to get a Frosty (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38477000)

I'm thirsty. Thirsty for a firsty.

FIrst post for Jesus. He's the reason for the season my bitches. Merry Christmas to all of you, including you Godless heathens

Re:ACs 1 big bet to get a Frosty (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38477152)

You're just saying that!

Glitch in the Matrix (2)

HideyoshiJP (1392619) | more than 2 years ago | (#38477018)

Whoa, did I just step in a universe warp? I remember reading that previous article as them signing a contract with Microsoft and switching to Bing. Where did all the zeppelins go?

Re:Glitch in the Matrix (1)

lennier1 (264730) | more than 2 years ago | (#38477134)

You're probably thinking of that pilot project which wasn't advertised on the main Firefox website but served as a test balloon to see how a competing search engine would fare as the default choice.

Re:Glitch in the Matrix (0)

wmbetts (1306001) | more than 2 years ago | (#38477188)

Where did all the zeppelins go?

Orgrimmar

What? (0)

whisper_jeff (680366) | more than 2 years ago | (#38477022)

The alternative, he says, is more control by the likes of Google, Facebook, and Apple.

What? Apple? I know that dropping the "Apple-bomb" in any discussion helps to generate page-views, but what? Apple controlling the internet? I can understand Google, to say the least. I can understand Facebook as well. They both are a huge part of the internet but Apple? Apple supports (heavily) an open source browser engine... Ah... Wait... I see. They support webkit which is the foundation of Safari and Chrome (you know, Chrome, which is kicking Firefox's ass right now) as well is most mobile browsers, all of which compete directly with Firefox. Sorry. Bias clearly noted. As you were...

Re:What? (5, Interesting)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 2 years ago | (#38477046)

No, it's the fact that Apple has a damn-near monopoly on mobile purchases, which are done in their walled garden. This is a big area of user activity, and will become a much bigger area of economic activity. Apple, through iTunes, matters to the Internet. In a bad way, unfortunately.

Re:What? (1)

Andreas Mayer (1486091) | more than 2 years ago | (#38478346)

No, it's the fact that Apple has a damn-near monopoly on mobile purchases,

And why is that? Because "it just works!"(TM)

You are welcome to build an alternative. But it better be (very) good.

Re:What? (1)

MacDork (560499) | more than 2 years ago | (#38479190)

No, it's the fact that Apple has a damn-near monopoly on mobile purchases,

And why is that? Because "it just works!"(TM)

You are welcome to build an alternative. But it better be (very) good.

Welcome? Apple sues anyone who builds an alternative.

Re:What? (1)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | more than 2 years ago | (#38479682)

That's their fault for wrongfully infringing on Apple's concise, specific, hard-earned intellectual property. And by intellectual property, I mean ownership over the concept of any object of some geometric shape emitting/receiving any form of electromagnetic waves.

Re:What? (1)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 2 years ago | (#38483426)

I'm not questioning the value or the quality of Apple's garden. But I am questioning the impact that such a walled garden has on the Internet in general.

"near monopoly" over what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38479622)

No, it's the fact that Apple has a damn-near monopoly on mobile purchases, which are done in their walled garden. This is a big area of user activity, and will become a much bigger area of economic activity. Apple, through iTunes, matters to the Internet. In a bad way, unfortunately.

And why is that? You only buy from Apple's "garden" if you already own an Apple device. And Apple doesn't even sell a plurality of mobile devices, to say nothing of a majority.

Apple dominates mobile purchasing not because it locks people in, but in spite of it. Because every other digital marketplace is a disaster. Only Amazon comes close, and it's still getting its stuff together.

Re:"near monopoly" over what? (1)

thsths (31372) | more than 2 years ago | (#38480744)

> Because every other digital marketplace is a disaster.

Agreed. The Android Market tempted me with the 10p apps, but man was it a painful experience. I would really really need an app to go through that again.

Re:What? (4, Interesting)

lennier1 (264730) | more than 2 years ago | (#38477190)

It's also in Google's interest because it keeps part of the anti-monopoly cries off their back.

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38477196)

What? Apple? I know that dropping the "Apple-bomb" in any discussion helps to generate page-views, but what? Apple controlling the internet?

This is not about seventies Apple (Apple ][) or eighties/nineties Apple (Mac), this is about twenty-first century Apple.

Re:What? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38477220)

I have actually stumbled across some early stage startup sites that are optimized for iPad. Yeah, you can view them with IE; but they suck that way.

It's a "velvet rope" business model. iPad users buy the cool clothes and fancy watches. They get into the club because the management knows they'll also buy that $20 drinks.

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38479968)

Well

Good. I assume under IE 9 it will work fine as it is HTML 5 ready. IE 10 will be even more so. With startup sites like that we can get rid of IE 6, 7, and soon IE 8 in the enterprise, and have intranet developers focus on writting standards compliant code rather than focusing the whole corporate infrastructure on a single version of a single browser, by a single company.

Many still feel open web is not a possibility at all.

Re:What? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38477248)

It's not just about the tubes on the internet. It's also about the last inches of unfreedom. From your palm to your face, there's Apple, locking you in, en masse.

Re:What? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38477730)

> locking you in, en masse.

Locking *dumb people* in, en masse, you mean. There is no obligation to enter Apple's walled gardens. Just don't buy the stuff. That simple. Sure, lots of people aren't smart enough to see where the road of giving a single company that much control over what you see, what you can run on your devices, where you can buy software from, and so on leads, but there are always myopic sheeple around who let advertising do their thinking for them. The rest of us can just not support evil business practices.

WSJ: $1 Billion Google Windfall for Mozilla (5, Informative)

theodp (442580) | more than 2 years ago | (#38477040)

What Google and Mozilla declined to disclose, reports AllThingsD's Kara Swisher, is that Google will pay just under $300 million per year to be the default choice in Mozillla's Firefox browser [allthingsd.com] , a huge jump from its previous arrangement, due to competing interest from both Yahoo and Microsoft. Sources said this total amount - just under $1 billion - was the minimum revenue guarantee for delivering search queries garnered from consumers using Firefox. Google's main rival in the bid, sources said, was Microsoft's Bing search service."

Re:WSJ: $1 Billion Google Windfall for Mozilla (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38478886)

This reminds me of the kinds of deals Microsoft used to make, to keep ahead of their distant rival(s). Google, like MS, can afford the money. What they're worried about is a competitor gaining buzz and mindshare, so they would no longer be considered the only reasonable choice.

Re:WSJ: $1 Billion Google Windfall for Mozilla (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38480126)

How is this undisclosed news? In fact, wasn't an article about the new deal in Slashdot just a little while ago? Hell, Mozilla's financials are available for anyone to see anyway. FUD

Re:WSJ: $1 Billion Google Windfall for Mozilla (1)

theodp (442580) | more than 2 years ago | (#38480718)

Clarification: The deal was disclosed, the dollars weren't.

Please STOP using the word "ironically" (1, Offtopic)

YA_Python_dev (885173) | more than 2 years ago | (#38477072)

It doesn't mean what you think it means. Please, "ironically" has been massacred enough already. Let's this word rest for a couple of decades, unless you are one of the two people in the world that actually uses it appropriately.

Re:Please STOP using the word "ironically" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38477120)

"Like"

Re:Please STOP using the word "ironically" (5, Funny)

schroedingers_hat (2449186) | more than 2 years ago | (#38477158)

It's ironic how much people using the word irony bothers you.

Re:Please STOP using the word "ironically" (0)

migla (1099771) | more than 2 years ago | (#38477292)

Ironic, isn't it?

Re:Please STOP using the word "ironically" (1)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 2 years ago | (#38477356)

It doesn't mean what you think it means. Please, "ironically" has been massacred enough already. Let's this word rest for a couple of decades, unless you are one of the two people in the world that actually uses it appropriately.

Ironically, by drawing peoples attention to the word without providing them an explanation of how it ought to be used, YA_Python_dev exacerbated the problem and increased his own suffering...

Re:Please STOP using the word "ironically" (5, Funny)

cjb658 (1235986) | more than 2 years ago | (#38477420)

It doesn't mean what you think it means. Please, "ironically" has been massacred enough already. Let's this word rest for a couple of decades, unless you are one of the two people in the world that actually uses it appropriately.

Ironically, by drawing peoples attention to the word without providing them an explanation of how it ought to be used, YA_Python_dev exacerbated the problem and increased his own suffering...

Plus he threw everyone who uses that expression under the bus. Literally.

Please STOP using the word "Literally" (0)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 2 years ago | (#38477438)

It doesn't mean what you think it means. Please, "ironically" has been massacred enough already. Let's this word rest for a couple of decades, unless you are one of the two people in the world that actually uses it appropriately.

Ironically, by drawing peoples attention to the word without providing them an explanation of how it ought to be used, YA_Python_dev exacerbated the problem and increased his own suffering...

Plus he threw everyone who uses that expression under the bus. Literally.

It doesn't mean what you think it means. Please, "Literally" has been massacred enough already. Let's this word rest for a couple of decades, unless you are one of the two people in the world that actually uses it appropriately.

Re:Please STOP using the word "Literally" (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 2 years ago | (#38477512)

Please, "Literally" has been massacred enough already. Let's this word rest for a couple of decades, unless you are one of the two people in the world that actually uses it appropriately.

Please stop building quote pyramids, that's what the "parent" link is for. Quote the pertinent part, to give your comment a bit of context, not the whole thing.

Please, "massacred" has been used to death already; Let's let this word rest for a couple of eternities, unless you are one of the two people in the world that literally uses it literally.

Re:Please STOP using the word "Literally" (1)

cjb658 (1235986) | more than 2 years ago | (#38477746)

I was trying to be funny by using more cliches. Sorry.

Re:Please STOP using the word "Literally" (1)

todd_is_not (1898120) | more than 2 years ago | (#38479552)

Trying to be funny by ironically using cliches has literally been used to death.

Re:Please STOP using the word "Literally" (1)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 2 years ago | (#38481202)

Irregardless...

Re:Please STOP using the word "Literally" (1)

Cochonou (576531) | more than 2 years ago | (#38482420)

You know, it's a perfectly acceptable usage of "Literally". It's a very common hyperbole.

Re:Please STOP using the word "ironically" (1)

M8e (1008767) | more than 2 years ago | (#38481264)

I think that everybody that uses that expression under the bus sould be threwed.

Re:Please STOP using the word "ironically" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38477626)

It's like rain on your wedding day

or a traffic jam when you're already late

Re:Please STOP using the word "ironically" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38477732)

Words mean whatever most people think they mean.

Re:Please STOP using the word "ironically" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38478920)

No, they don't. They mean exactly what they mean.
Ignorance doesn't change that.

Re:Please STOP using the word "ironically" (1)

Mitchell314 (1576581) | more than 2 years ago | (#38479736)

[Ir]Regardless, the use of the term "ironically" to indicate contradicting actions and intentions is very much valid [reference.com] .

Re:Please STOP using the word "ironically" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38483150)

What is the authoritative source of meaning? The people who make the Oxford English Dictionary? Who are they to tell a culture what meaning is?

Re:Please STOP using the word "ironically" (1)

bussdriver (620565) | more than 2 years ago | (#38478438)

>unless you are one of the two people in the world that actually uses it appropriately.

1) George Carlin
2) ? you ?

Re:Please STOP using the word "ironically" (2)

nman64 (912054) | more than 2 years ago | (#38479832)

Nice try, but you're in the wrong. TFS actually uses "ironically" correctly.

From WordNet (r) 3.0 (2006) [wn]:

    irony
            n 1: witty language used to convey insults or scorn; "he used
                      sarcasm to upset his opponent"; "irony is wasted on the
                      stupid"; "Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do
                      generally discover everybody's face but their own"--
                      Jonathan Swift [syn: {sarcasm}, {irony}, {satire}, {caustic
                      remark}]
            2: incongruity between what might be expected and what actually
                  occurs; "the irony of Ireland's copying the nation she most
                  hated"
            3: a trope that involves incongruity between what is expected
                  and what occurs

Google paying money to Mozilla that would quite obviously be used to further develop products that compete with Google's own is not something one might expect, thus an incongruity between what is expected and what occurs has been introduced.

I know that many people use "ironic" and "ironically" incorrectly, and that it is popular to jump on them for doing so, but TFS has not made that mistake. Contrast this with the well-known examples of misuse by Alanis Morissette, and see that the situations she identifies do not have the same incongruity. Those situations are unfortunate and coincidental, but there is no incongruity between what is expected and what occurs. Direct your hate at that kind of incorrect usage and support the correct usage of a valuable tool of our language and humor.

plu5 4, Trol7) (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38477154)

Anti-competitive (1)

ArhcAngel (247594) | more than 2 years ago | (#38477194)

Google is under a great deal of scrutiny of late and anything they can do to show they are benevolent overseers will go a long way in allaying some of the current concerns. The fact they also benefit with all those FireFox users searches doesn't heart either.

....ooooo MAKE A BIGGER BROWSER (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38477210)

....oooooOHHHHHH YAAAAA.....no really lol

Google: FF search deal expired, DOJ hot on heels. (1)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 2 years ago | (#38477470)

NOPE!  See, we're not a monopoly!  We're HELPING the competition compete!

Re:Google: FF search deal expired, DOJ hot on heel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38478194)

Does Mozilla compete with Google in web search market, web ads market, web office suites market, ...?

This one's unrelated to any "monopoly" and "competition" (though it helps google with some part of web search share)

BrowserID doesn't work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38478136)

Mozilla's demo for BrowserID is myfavoritebeer.org.
I went to the site and clicked the button that says, "Sign In"

The only thing that happened was that the Sign In button grayed out.
Is this some cookie thing? If so, they fail on the privacy they claim to respect better than OpenID.

windows 7 Serial key (0)

windows 7 Serial key (2538180) | more than 2 years ago | (#38478468)

1 +1 is happening every day,(http://windows7-serialkey.com/) ,of course, and leading companies in the capital and "value" ,Windows 7 Serial Key [windows7-serialkey.com] ,to this success, two things are larger than the destruction of the superiority of Microsoft for the Internet community. And they worked together for many years, Google search, Windows XP Serial Key [windows7-serialkey.com] ,which has dominated the browser Mozilla Firefox's default search engine position.This ,Windows Vista Serial Key [windows7-serialkey.com] ,can all be unfounded Microsoft - 5 to 10 years in the web browser market, the manufacturer of the most powerful operating system,Office 2010 Serial Key [windows7-serialkey.com] , Google is - now dominated by the search engines and advertising. But the most important in the ,Microsoft Serial Key [windows7-serialkey.com] ,search engines and how the browser is ,Office 2007 Serial Key [windows7-serialkey.com] ,blowing smoke today for the first time that has been put on the table for Netscape,, for a period of 15 years will be allowed to Microsoft and AOL,Windows 7 Key [windows7-serialkey.com] , the browser and the collection of information. Stupid game to get more money.

Nice! Three great products! (1)

bigsexyjoe (581721) | more than 2 years ago | (#38478622)

I think the big question will be, how do you make apps for Boot 2 Gecko? Will they be similar to Android apps? Also, I don't mean this as a joke, but would Boot 2 Gecko mean that Richard Stallman could own a cellphone?

P.S. I recently experimented with Chrome and Opera. But I am back to Firefox because it is just better. Chrome eats memory like crazy without being so fast. Frankly Chrome is also buggier. And the incognito mode is leaky.

Re:Nice! Three great products! (1)

BZ (40346) | more than 2 years ago | (#38479286)

> How do you make apps for Boot 2 Gecko?

Just like you make websites.

There will be some sort of APIs for doing things that need expanded privileged, but those will be proposed for standardization just like any web API.

Re:Nice! Three great products! (1)

Zakabog (603757) | more than 2 years ago | (#38479484)

Richard Stallman refuses to use credit cards for anything because he doesn't want the government tracking his purchases. I don't think having a free (as in speech) OS on a phone will make any difference. Unless it was built by himself with free hardware using a free network.

Doomed because.. (3, Insightful)

goruka (1721094) | more than 2 years ago | (#38478952)

Mozilla people have this strange vision that they can replace everything (OSs, Desktop, Apps, Cellphone and tablet UIs, etc) with HTML5, JavaScript and nothing else. While Im sure that many developers like JavaScript and that HTML5 brings several great features to the open web, most of us programmers definitely DONT want to use it to write all sorts of applications and games. JS+HTML5 are not a silver bullet or general purpose enough. The recent resurgence of native applications is proof of this.

Re:Doomed because.. (0)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#38480008)

So you would prefer Adobe flash and having your web browser consume many gigs of ram for all the scripts and caching for each flash enabled site?

It is not Firefox, but flash that is really causing the bloat you see with hi rez graphics running in software and not on the GPU.

JS is actually not so bad. I wish MS didn't own .NET and we could use it to write scripts in more languages. ... actually that is a good thing for security come to think of it.

Chrome is working to make a whole proprietary ecosystem based on NACL and other things inside Chrome to fullfill your need to leave JS. Dart is another Chrome language as well that it will try to use to position itself in the market. I wish more slashdotters would see this as Chrome is starting to turn into the next IE 6? Just because MS is the company name does not make it bad. Look at what poor old Apple turned into once they became dominant?

  Applets inside the browser targeted for just one browser to run its own set of cloud apps is a threat that rightfully scares Mozilla. With MS out of the way in the tablet space it is a Safari vs Chrome world. I actually hope IE 9/10 mobile with Windows 8 will take marketshare. We could use some competition and I do not care who the company is.

I favor using applets in any language you want on the OS and have the gui glue underneath run HTML 5 + ajax. Not ideal but in this graphical age a standard is needed for applets gui layout and HTML 5 fullfils this nice.

Re:Doomed because.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38480498)

It's worth noting that firefox ITSELF it actually a good example of what js+html5 can do for you - while obviously the engine is old fashioned C/C++ - the entire UI of the browser is XUL which is basically just XML + CSS + JS. Mozilla is pushing the html5 standards because they want the browser to be able to access accelerometers/gyroscopes/cameras/other sensors so you can easily code doodlejump or angrybirds entirely in html5 on a phone. Write it once, it works on your android, iphone, desktop, and whatever future platform - they want html5/js to be the true 'write once run anywhere' that java is supposed to be.

Re:Doomed because.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38480636)

I believe it is one of Mozilla long term goals is to push the HTML standard so that it can be used for GUI applications.

If true, whether it is a good or bad thing for programmers, the possibility is a standardised programming language for the masses. There are better solutions out there to create applications but for the ordinary person going from able to create a web-page to creating an application based on HTML5/JS/CSS will be a lot easier than learning another language from scratch. It really down to a fear factor that programming is some black art and frankly laziness.

Re:Doomed because.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38485770)

JavaScript is fine; HTML is totally unsuited for UI development, that's why they had to come up with XUL and XBL about a decade ago. They jammed some of the XUL-style capabilities into HTML via CSS, but there's still nothing like XBL available (except possibly Microsoft's old HTML Behaviors stuff). Basically, they're putting the cart way before the horse, again.

Competition? Really? (2)

Altanar (56809) | more than 2 years ago | (#38479166)

Unless Mozilla releases its own advertising network or office suite, it isn't competing with Google. Frankly, anyone who even believed for a second that Google would let the search deal with Mozilla expire doesn't understand Google at all. Google has one main directive: Increase usage of Google **websites** to increase **advertising revenue**. Ending a deal with a major browser to provide the default search engine is completely adverse Google's business plan. You better believe that if Google could, they'd pay Microsoft to make IE's default search engine Google's.

Chrome isn't a business model. It is a tool Google is using to influence every other browser and the web. By making a fast, standards-based browser, and influencing other browsers to follow their example, they make general internet usage--and by extension ALL Google sites--work better. And if Google sites work better, users will spend more time using them.... will see more ads... will use Google Docs... will increase Google's revenue.

Comparing 2011's Google/Chrome to 1997's Microsoft/IE is a false dichotomy. Microsoft thought it could control the web to lock people into proprietary software. Google wants to speed up the web to get people to use it even more then they already do.

Re:Competition? Really? (2, Interesting)

BZ (40346) | more than 2 years ago | (#38479300)

> they make general internet usage--and by extension
> ALL Google sites--work better.

That's where they started.

Now they are specifically trying to make Google sites work particularly well with Chrome (and in some cases only with WebKit), even if that has to happen at the expense of other browsers. They are also trying to make Chrome work particularly well with their own sites, even if that comes at the expense of other sites, of course.

> Microsoft thought it could control the web to lock
> people into proprietary software.

And Google thinks they can lock users into their websites and their app store, and if it takes switching them to their browser first, that just means they should try to stealth-install that browser on as many computers as possible.

The firefox needs to become the phoenix (1)

BlueCoder (223005) | more than 2 years ago | (#38480624)

Firefox needs to die and start over. This is a good thing for most software. I think the Mozilla Foundation should start over and develop a new browser with a new name. Firefox takes up too much memory, it seems to be they aren't coming up with new efficient code, they are instead just caching everything. I dream about the good old days with internet explorer 2. In fact I think they need to come out with multiple browser, browsers for different users and uses. How about a security enhance browser for doing your banking. A browser specifically for multimedia viewing. A browser optimized for playing web games. A browser that doesn't support videos and is designed for reading with faster loading times. Maybe even a text only browser. A browser designed for low memory. No one tool can do it all. Having separate specialized tools is always the path to greater efficacy and efficiency.

As far as Google Chrome goes I don't trust it. The biggest feature a browser can offer is protecting my privacy and Google's only makes money by doing the opposite. Also notice how Firefox has only gotten worse during the years they were backed by Google.

Do we want this? (2)

peppepz (1311345) | more than 2 years ago | (#38480694)

A new subset of Linux that is even more limited than Android?
A new push for "apps" just when HTML5 was going to lower the boundaries between applications and web sites?
An easier way for web sites to identify me?

I know I'm grossly over-simplifying, and there are positive aspects for each of the three "bets" that I'm not listing here, but still I don't know if I'm 100% sold to those ideas. Or to the fact that they should be a priority for open source developers.

gee, now i'm not sure i understand (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38482226)

the difference between "competition" and "collusion". the big guys are simply agreeing on how to divide the pie

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>