×

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!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

278 comments

They sold out a long time ago (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45486849)

This is just confirmation.

Re:They sold out a long time ago (5, Insightful)

amiga3D (567632) | about 5 months ago | (#45486915)

What a stupid comment. Everyone has to have revenue of some kind. What were they going to do? Operate off of donations? They provide a class browser for free. Next best free alternative? Chrome browser. Guess who makes that?

why does it always have to be bigger/"better"? (4, Insightful)

SuperBanana (662181) | about 5 months ago | (#45487203)

What were they going to do? Operate off of donations?

Aside from you ignoring the giant white elephant in the room, which is that Google is increasingly encompassing or influencing every aspect of the internet it possibly can, which is NOT HEALTHY...Why not operate off donations? They're not a for-profit corporation, they don't have investors or shareholders, etc.

There was ZERO need for growing Mozilla into the monster it is today with a finger in everything. What the fuck is Mozilla doing promoting a surfing competition [mozilla.org]? Why the fuck is Mozilla making an OS and trying to sell cell phones?(Did all the OpenMoko failures start squatting at Mozilla HQ or something?) Why does the Mozilla website design change every month?

While I'm ranting: nobody was clamoring for the moron-ization of Firefox's controls (some privacy-related, like the stripping-out of the ability to expire history+cache+cookie data older than a certain time period. Want to only keep the last 7 days of history? Too fuckin' bad! Gee, who has an interest in that? Advertisers like GOOGLE) or the butchering of Thunderbird at the hands of some 20-year old self-proclaimed UX expert.

About the only thing I see Mozilla doing well these days is pissing people off with every application update, something Google excels at, as well.

And by the way, get off my lawn.

Re: why does it always have to be bigger/"better"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45487243)

Please, eat or sit in the second part of your nickname.
Then fork the code or just return to use IE or Safari... ...nobody wants that you step in our lawn.

Re:why does it always have to be bigger/"better"? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45487361)

Is there a fork of Firefox from before it was shit up by Asa Dotzler? He's possibly the worst project lead in the history of software. Firefox is losing web browser share month by month and he focuses on yet another shitty UI revamp

Re:why does it always have to be bigger/"better"? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45487735)

Lennart Poettering called, he says you're an idiot but thanks anyway.

Re:why does it always have to be bigger/"better"? (3, Informative)

Smauler (915644) | about 5 months ago | (#45487531)

Why not operate off donations? They're not a for-profit corporation, they don't have investors or shareholders, etc.

Well, their expenses for software development in 2012 were almost $150,000,000. Their expenses for branding and marketing were almost $30,000,000.

Now, if you can find enough people to make those donations, good luck.

You could (and probably should) argue that their expenses should not be that high, but they're never going to hit that revenue with donations.

Open Source spending $30M on branding? (5, Insightful)

SuperBanana (662181) | about 5 months ago | (#45487615)

Their expenses for branding and marketing were almost $30,000,000.

This. This is the problem right here. Why does an open-source project need to spend thirty million dollars promoting a "brand" most people are already fully aware of? Firefox already has a healthy enough market share; there's no NEED for it to have more.

And why does it cost $150M/year to work on a browser, email client, and some dev tools? They have 650 or so employees - assuming every single one was a developer, they're spending $230,000 on each one.

If it truly costs $150M/year to work on the "products" Mozilla produces, that's absurdly inefficient.

Re:why does it always have to be bigger/"better"? (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 5 months ago | (#45487587)

Ever heard the phrase "don't look a gift horse in the mouth"? I think Mozilla understand it quite well.

Re:They sold out a long time ago (1)

ottothecow (600101) | about 5 months ago | (#45487317)

I wonder if they ever considered making money the way a lot of deal sites and forums do...by inserting their referral link into amazon links.

Obviously make it a voluntary option, but I would think they could squeeze out a lot of revenue just taking any unreferred link and turning it into a referral. I suppose Amazon might not love this, but it is not that different than what forum operators do when they add referrals to every outgoing amazon link.

Re:They sold out a long time ago (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45487457)

At least Google are stepping up to the plate and sponsoring it. That is soon resembles the mothership (Chrome) is not surprising. My only wish is that Google had stuck to their original motto of "do no evil" which now...

Re:They sold out a long time ago (4, Insightful)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 5 months ago | (#45486993)

"They sold out a long time ago"

In what way? They're the only major "independent" browser. They're the browser that has led the field in personal privacy, security, and blocking trackers. They're the ones who put out a mobile phone OS that doesn't try to lock you in to one company's services.

I'd like to know how you think any of that is "selling out".

Re:They sold out a long time ago (1)

larry bagina (561269) | about 5 months ago | (#45487019)

Why doesn't firefox block 3rd party cookies by default? Safari blocks 3rd party cookies by default.

Re:They sold out a long time ago (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45487033)

Safari also sucks, by default.

Re:They sold out a long time ago (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45487067)

Because it breaks the fucking web. So much so that Google have hacked people's installations of Safari to disable it.

Mozilla are the only ones actively trying to solve that problem, and yet the only thing your kind can see and say is "they haven't fixed it yet!" If you feel that god damn strongly about it, because part of the solution.

It's easy to wag fingers at the smallest guy in the ring for not doing all the work, but it doesn't make you right. It makes you sound like a boorish oaf who can't be bothered to use RequestPolicy and would rather someone else solve the problem for them YESTERDAY, conveniently without even paying them for the work.

Re:They sold out a long time ago (4, Informative)

arth1 (260657) | about 5 months ago | (#45487211)

Because it breaks the fucking web. So much so that Google have hacked people's installations of Safari to disable it.

Out of the goodness of their heart. It obviously has nothing to do with 3rd party cookies being used for tracking and generating ad revenue.

No, you don't need 3rd party cookies. The benign use of those is almost non-existing, and the only "breakage" are sites that deliberately won't work unless they can track you. If you're fine with that, there's a Chrome for you.

Re:They sold out a long time ago (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45487435)

Look, if you're unwilling to actually read the Bugzilla and forum threads about this, don't get on your high horse. Any user who WANTS third party cookies off can easily do so. This is about the users who don't realize they want third party cookies off, and Mozilla has to step far more lightly with them because it DOES break the web. Lots of sites will break if you don't also see their ads or allow their trackers to work. And that's just advertising. Lots of other sites use third-party cookies not for ad-tracking, and they can break too.

Re:They sold out a long time ago (2)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about 5 months ago | (#45487549)

This is FUD. Please demonstrate any problems with default 3rd party blocking, other than advertising and tracking. Specific sites and examples. If you're right, it shouldn't be hard.

Re:They sold out a long time ago (4, Insightful)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 5 months ago | (#45487573)

I'll repeat what I said above - disabling 3rd party cookies does not break the web. The fact is, those sites you mention intentionally break the web, then tell you that if you want to see the web, you have to enable their cookies. The web is there, with or without the cookies. Holding the web hostage, and telling users that they aren't permitted to see the web unless you can track them is evil. I don't do 3rd party cookies. Occasionally, some weird thing happens, and I can't see what I thought I wanted to see. I say, "Big deal - I didn't need that anyway!" I go on, and find the content that I was looking for through some other provider.

Re:They sold out a long time ago (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 5 months ago | (#45487539)

"Because it breaks the fucking web."

Utter nonsense. It breaks nothing to disable third party cookies. Absolutely nothing. It merely pisses of those people who are capitalizing on the web. Anyone who makes money by tracking me is irritated when they can't track me. Nothing is broken. It poisons parasites, but poisoning parasites makes the host stronger and healthier.

Re:They sold out a long time ago (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45487563)

Blocking third party cookies "breaks the web", but keying web resources also by origin domain does not, as is done for code sharing uses. However, leaving open a massive security vulnerability to facilitate data sharing is the choice they have taken. And, of course, this is because of their partnership with google. Safari blocks third party cookies by default with such insignificant impact that they don't even bother to properly key resources by origin domain. Apple would rather google provide the default-insecure browsers.

Re:They sold out a long time ago (4, Insightful)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 5 months ago | (#45487603)

"Because it breaks the fucking web. So much so that Google have hacked people's installations of Safari to disable it."

It does absolutely nothing of the sort. It breaks some companies' business models on the web. Those are not even remotely the same things.

If those companies disappeared tomorrow, the web would remain. Hell, it might even be a better place.

Re:They sold out a long time ago (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45487679)

Why is this total nonsense modded to +3....

Re:They sold out a long time ago (1)

LordLucless (582312) | about 5 months ago | (#45487139)

90% funded by Google doesn't really scream "independant" to me.

Personally, I think Google keeps the money flowing out of fear that if the Mozilla Foundation shuts down, somebody with a clue might turn Firefox into a competitive browser again.

Re:They sold out a long time ago (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 5 months ago | (#45487567)

Repeat: they are not "funded" by Google. They have a business deal, for some ads and for a Google search bar in their browser. Big deal.

Google isn't "giving" them money, or "hiring" them in any way. And the search bar takes all of 3 seconds (I checked) to get rid of.

Re:They sold out a long time ago (2)

LordLucless (582312) | about 5 months ago | (#45487647)

They received 90% of their total income from Google. By any reasonable definition, they were funded by Google.

What obligations that funding puts them under is a separate question. There may be no strings attached to that money, but even so, it gives Google leverage, even if that leverage isn't utilised. The question is whether you can be considered "independent" when one of the main actors in the market has that much leverage over you.

Re:They sold out a long time ago (1)

msauve (701917) | about 5 months ago | (#45487267)

They spent $150 million in a year on software development. Really, for a browser and not a whole lot else? That's certainly not "free, like beer." Someone is making money, without the results to show for it.

Their problem isn't revenue, it's expenses.

Re: They sold out a long time ago (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45487385)

You have discovered the black thread... come on and create your own browser, make millions and be a happy trollish-entity.
You have the character, now, do it!

Because they put out crap (4, Informative)

OverlordQ (264228) | about 5 months ago | (#45486899)

It's because instead of listening to what the users want, they plow ahead with stupid UI-redesigns to make Firefox a slower, buggier Chrome clone. I mean sure, the new UI is spiffy, but they can't fix a nearly ten year old bug with find [mozilla.org].

Re:Because they put out crap (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45486965)

The biggest problem with Firefox is it's most vocal set of "supporters", who don't realize that they're actually detractors now. They don't even realize how ridiculously entitled and myopic they are anymore.

If you can't see the good that Mozilla's been doing the past two years, then you should just stop using Firefox already. It's all negatives for you guys, and you're doing more active harm to Firefox now than Mozilla ever could.

I won't even bother trying to enlighten you, because apparently your segment of the fandom just wants to see the things they view as "bad" as the be-all, end-all for Firefox going down the shitter. Firefox could save all puppies and cure all disease, but you wouldn't care at all because it moved a few buttons and has some bugs while they try to salvage the bloody thing.

Missing the point (1)

cultiv8 (1660093) | about 5 months ago | (#45487051)

Mozilla is like a small business with 1 huge client. The client leaves and there goes the business. Regardless of internal politics within Mozilla, Google owns Mozilla, plain and simple.

Re:Missing the point (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45487331)

Google owns Mozilla, plain and simple.

Microsoft already has a Bing deal with Mobile Firefox, and could easily be the drop-in default search replacing google.
Your argument is invalid. [chzbgr.com]

Re:Missing the point (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about 5 months ago | (#45487421)

would they pay as well? clearly not, as they would replace them with bing if they did.

(mobile firefox doesn't exist on platforms with ie mobile)

Re:Missing the point (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45487441)

Yes they already bid to be the default search on the desktop version, Google just outbid them last time.

Re:Missing the point (1)

Gavagai80 (1275204) | about 5 months ago | (#45487593)

It wouldn't pay once everybody changed the search engine to google as their first action after installing the browser.

Re:Because they put out crap (0)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 5 months ago | (#45487063)

It's because instead of listening to what the users want,

Okay, who are you going to listen to: The person paying 90% of your salary, or the remaining 10%. And before you answer this -- who won the last election? The guy with the most money, or the guy who "listened to what the [users] want"?

Your logic is shit. Everyone takes the money.

Re:Because they put out crap (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45487293)

You know, if half the Firefox users who complain about this actually donated to Mozilla on a regular basis, I'll bet Google wouldn't even have to account for half of Mozilla's revenue.

Re:Because they put out crap (2)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 5 months ago | (#45487301)

You know, if half the Firefox users who complain about this actually donated to Mozilla on a regular basis, I'll bet Google wouldn't even have to account for half of Mozilla's revenue.

You really think charity-work is going to be able to drum up as much money as one of the largest companies on the face of the Earth? Good luck with that.

Re:Because they put out crap (0)

gl4ss (559668) | about 5 months ago | (#45487433)

maybe they would if mozilla had not been full of shit for a while now.

I wouldn't want to donate money so that they can use it on a skinned webkit on mobile, just to be on mobile, while running yet another pointless ui revamp on desktop.

Re:Because they put out crap (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45487585)

You seem to be the one full of shit. Mozilla doesn't use a "skinned webkit", it uses gecko. Go ahead and run the MathML Acid2 test [github.io] on Android in both Firefox and Chrome if you don't believe me.

Re:Because they put out crap (1)

OneAhead (1495535) | about 5 months ago | (#45487445)

Pray tell, who is 'the guy who "listened to what the [users] want"'? Because (assuming you're talking about the US presidential election, you insensitive clod) I sure as hell didn't see him making an appearance amongst the guys who didn't win. Hell, is it even possible say such thing about any politician in a country so deeply divided?!

Re: your sig:

If this post is marked Troll, I made a completely offtopic comment that was meant to provoke an emotional response [wikipedia.org] again.

FTFY.

Re:Because they put out crap (0)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 5 months ago | (#45487779)

Pray tell, who is 'the guy who "listened to what the [users] want"'?

He doesn't exist. That was the point I was making, which then made a nice whooshing noise as it went over your head.

Because (assuming you're talking about the US presidential election, you insensitive clod) I sure as hell didn't see him making an appearance amongst the guys who didn't win.

That may simply be a reflection of your limited sensory abilities. It is, afterall, humanly impossible for anyone to have watched all the television, read all the newspapers, and gone to all the campaign speeches, during the last election. And, were it possible, I would severely question the sanity of that individual.

FTFY.

I see your ad hominid and raise you a witty reparte. You are now (glancing at nickname)... OneBehind.

Re:Because they put out crap (0)

camg188 (932324) | about 5 months ago | (#45487179)

but they can't fix a nearly ten year old bug with find.

OM-fn-G!
You mean they haven't fixed the bug where the FindToolbar's 'Find Previous' button in XML document tree view doesn't work!!1!

That's a pretty petty criticism. It's a feature that is rarely used. I'd bet that most Firefox users are completely unaware of it. Particularly when a there's a simple workaround. Just manually move your cursor to the top of the page and use the "Find Next" button.

Re:Because they put out crap (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45487305)

feel free to contribute

Re:Because they put out crap (0)

ron_ivi (607351) | about 5 months ago | (#45487643)

they can't fix a nearly ten year old bug with find.

You're welcome to submit the patch yourself if it bugs you that much.

Or you're welcome to pay someone to do it. Even them - and if you paid them enough, people'd complain less about the ratio of revenue they get from google.

And if the "bug" doesn't bug you enough to do either of the above, it's not really that important, is it?

Mozilla Goes Evil, Film at 11 (5, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 5 months ago | (#45486907)

... And we wonder why they backed off the Do Not Track, why plugins are no longer being vetted to ensure they're actually doing what they say, etc. Guys... How much more evidence do you need that Google is evil -- they're sending vans in your neighborhood, taking pictures of your houses, collecting your wifi network names, OTA traffic, embedding realtime tracking into your phones, and the list goes on. We piss ourselves like excited dogs at the prospect of the NSA spying on us (Sorry but you just aren't that interesting), but when Google does ten times that and is whoring out your personal data like it has a crack addiction, we find people saying "Ah, well, it's a convenience, and how else do you expect us to get all these nifty apps if we don't surrender all our privacy and have advertisements shoved down our throats?"

And now they've infected the only major open source software browser out there. And it's just a matter of time before they pull the rug out from under the organization and it implodes. But it's cool... you can always upgrade to Chrome. And as a bonus... it'll happily store every interaction you make with your browser on Google's servers. Isn't that... convenient?

Two things... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45486981)

(1) You forgot about Google's diabolical barges.
(2) Google isn't breaking anyone's door down with a well armed friends.

Re: Two things... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45487029)

Yet, wait until they leave their prototype in the bar

Re:Two things... (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 5 months ago | (#45487297)

(2) Google isn't breaking anyone's door down with a well armed friends.

They don't need to. You give them everything they ask for.

Re:Mozilla Goes Evil, Film at 11 (4, Insightful)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 5 months ago | (#45487053)

"And we wonder why they backed off the Do Not Track ..."

The only thing they "backed off" from was a a default setting. Big deal. IIRC, they were the first to even include that feature in their browser.

They also support -- and highly recommend -- a plugin that lets you see ALL the "3rd parties" who are tracking you when you visit a website. AFAIK there is still no other browser that offers such functionality. Not even Ghostery does the same job.

"And now they've infected the only major open source software browser out there."

How? How have they "infected" it? The only thing going on here is that they get royalties from Google ads... as do many, many other people and companies. Has Google "infected" them, too? If you run some Google ads are you "infected"?

Mozilla was not always getting most of its revenue from Google, Google isn't "giving" them the money, it's from ads, and Google's disappearance tomorrow would not make Mozilla "implode". They'd just have to advertise elsewhere.

I think you have extremely grossly overstated your case.

Re:Mozilla Goes Evil, Film at 11 (-1, Flamebait)

girlintraining (1395911) | about 5 months ago | (#45487725)

The only thing they "backed off" from was a a default setting. Big deal.

Paid for by Google Ads. Yeah, it's a problem.

IIRC, they were the first to even include that feature in their browser.

It was a proposed government standard [dubfire.net]. It was first implimented by collaborators after that meeting, and a plugin published for download on Mozilla's homepage. So no, they were not the first. Mozilla was the first browser to have it included, but that was not because of the Mozilla Foundation.

AFAIK there is still no other browser that offers such functionality. Not even Ghostery does the same job.

All browsers save cookies. They are documented ways of recovering them; for obvious reasons. Sorry.

How? How have they "infected" it?

The same way rich lobbyists infected Congress.

Mozilla was not always getting most of its revenue from Google,

Which means nothing in the present, in which they are.

Google isn't "giving" them the money, it's from ads,

No, Google is giving them money. But don't take my word for it; It's in the FAQ [mozilla.org] for their financial statements. Just browse down to the question "How does Mozilla generate revenue?"

The majority of Mozillaâ(TM)s revenue is generated from search and commerce functionality included in our Firefox product through all major search partners including Google, Bing, Yahoo, Yandex, Amazon, Ebay and others. Mozillaâ(TM)s reported revenues also include very important individual and corporate donations and grants, which are growing significantly, as well as other forms of income from our investable assets.

and Google's disappearance tomorrow would not make Mozilla "implode". They'd just have to advertise elsewhere.

Yeah. 90% of their revenue dries up and it's just a simple matter of pointing their ad servers to a new place...

I think you have extremely grossly overstated your case.

But I don't think I have "extremely grossly overstated" anything... in fact, if anything, I was trying to understate things to avoid flames from idiot fanboys who think their youthful idealism is shared by the companies whose products they use. But as that has failed, I'm reverting to my usual brand of bluntness. So with that in mind: I think you've been smoking more crack than the Toronto mayor. You were wrong on every point you made, and not just a little.

Re:Mozilla Goes Evil, Film at 11 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45487159)

Nice troll, troll.

vans in your neighborhood, taking pictures of your houses

Google maps is one of the best inventions of the 21st century so far. A picture of your house from the public street once per year or less is hardly an invasion.

wifi network names

Who gives a fuck. Wifi sucks anyway, use a fucking cable.

OTA traffic

Ok I have no idea what you mean.

tracking into your phones

The entire mobile phone industry is a wretched hive of scum and villainy. No one should carry a mobile phone.

NSA spying vs. Google spying

So you think we aren't interesting while simultaneously being interesting? That's rather inconsistent.

Yea it sucks that Google gets its money from ads, but free is also nice, so how the hell can that be resolved? It isn't like any other company has figured out how to resolve it. The main problem exposed by advertising is that companies have way too much money. They drive down how much they spend on workers which results in a glut of cash, so they piss it away on pointless advertising, which then funds the cool shit google does, which google then gives away for free because the workers don't have any money, this economic system is insane. The realities of technology and work in the 21st century is making capitalism obsolete anyway. Figuring out a new economic system is needed.

Oh, but yeah, firefox does kind of suck now. Popup blocking doesn't even work anymore, unless you go full AdBlock or NoScript.

Re:Mozilla Goes Evil, Film at 11 (1)

thisisauniqueid (825395) | about 5 months ago | (#45487687)

If Google had that much say over what Mozilla does, Firefox would have switched from NPAPI to PPAPI (Pepper) and would have started supporting Native Client a long time ago.

So.. Uh.. Where's that other 10% come from? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45486911)

Really, what does Firefox sell? Is the rest donations?

Mozilla could at least adopt WebP.. (1)

goruka (1721094) | about 5 months ago | (#45486917)

Despite engineers from high traffic websites such as Facebook begging Mozilla to implement it in the hopes of saving bandwidth costs, and despite plenty of success stories for those who implemented it only for Chrome, they still continue do deny the format a chance. [mozilla.org].
Meanwhile, the internet still lacks a lossy compression image format that supports alpha transparency... Thank you Mozilla!

Re:Mozilla could at least adopt WebP.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45487021)

Why aren't you blaming Microsoft or Apple too? Because Mozilla is a convenient target. You know you can pressure Mozilla into doing this, and thus win on the other fronts. You don't want to do the right thing, you want to do whatever it takes to lower your bottom line NOW.

Google is pushing a lot of tech on everyone that's barely worthy of consideration as a proper standard, let alone being deployed for millions of users worldwide. WebP is Google's attempt to solve the not-invented-here problem for image formats, and not everyone wants to see yet another of their enormous, barely-working solutions implemented on the web, like WebM, SPDY, Pepper, NaCl and the rest.

Or did you think that just because Google slaps the source code out there that everyone should immediately adopt it? It takes many a year to prove a tech like WebP, especially one that's a living standard. It doesn't help that Google didn't want to support other image formats beforehand when others like Mozilla were asking them to.

Face facts, Google and WebP aren't underdogs. They can push the tech with or without Mozilla's help. Mozilla is too small to do things as quickly as your lot is demanding, and yet they're willing to slow things the fuck down and make a sensible choice, for them and their users. But no, they're the villains here, clearly.

Re:Mozilla could at least adopt WebP.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45487719)

Hey, if it wasn't for Mozilla the web wouldn't have PNG. Just because you happen to have a hard-on for unproven tech like WebP doesn't mean Mozilla has to jump on that bandwagon early.

Besides, Google wasn't exactly chomping at the bit to help APNG take off, so there's some bad blood there. I can't fault Mozilla for being the voice of reason, especially while the people pushing for WebP seem to be those who merely have a financial interest in "something better than we have", a stop-gap or otherwise.

beta.slashdot.org? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45486919)

I somehow just got served beta.slashdot.org by default. Half of the comment pages are taken up by an empty sidebar, and there's a whole #0a0a0a worth of color difference between the comment text and the gray background. Kill it with fire.

ABANDON SHIP (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45486939)

Firefox is a sinking ship. It is filled with bugs and slow rendering. The code base is pushing 20 years old!

Time to abandon this ship. The developers are out of ideas and instead of incremental refinements, they're all about adding useless features (PDF viewer, the ENTIRE CONCEPT OF FirefoxOS) and removing useful ones (navigation buttons, menu bars, etc). When your best attempt is a shit copy of Chrome instead of something that offers value from differentiation, its time to give up and move on to something more productive with your life.

Give me a cross-platform Webkit based browser backed by an organization that stands for what Mozilla USED to stand for (when Mozilla was a suite with a DOT ORG and not a DOT COM) and I may be interested. Until then, I have Chrome (well...Chromium on OpenBSD).

Re:ABANDON SHIP (3, Informative)

nullchar (446050) | about 5 months ago | (#45487003)

You obviously do not use, nor rely on, extensions. Extensions for Chrome/Chromium pale in comparison to what extensions for Firefox can do.

Want tabs on the side? Good luck with Chrome. Good luck with alternate Webkit browsers with not enough marketshare to attract extensions.

Simple things like holding control (and optionally shift!) to select cell values or entire columns in a table are what set Firefox apart from other browsers.

Re:ABANDON SHIP (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45487065)

You obviously do not use, nor rely on, extensions. Extensions for Chrome/Chromium pale in comparison to what extensions for Firefox can do.

OP here. I use the following extensions in Firefox:
- AdBlock Plus
- Ghostery
- Gnome Theme
- DuckDuckGo
- HTTPS Everywhere
- Youtube Comment Blocker
- Youtube Downloader (necessary since Flash is not available on my platform)

Of those extensions, only the "Gnome Theme" is not available in Chromium.

Re:ABANDON SHIP (3, Informative)

nullchar (446050) | about 5 months ago | (#45487509)

How about:
  - TabKit (tabs on the side, how does anyone browse without this?!!)
  - FoxyProxy
  - NoScript (it's not the same on Chrome)
  - Redirector
  - Screen Capture Elite
  - HTML Validator
  - Refcontrol (blocks/fakes referrer header)
  - Better Privacy (flash cookie blocker/sanitizer)

The list goes on...

Re:ABANDON SHIP (1)

rudy_wayne (414635) | about 5 months ago | (#45487335)

You obviously do not use, nor rely on, extensions. Extensions for Chrome/Chromium pale in comparison to what extensions for Firefox can do.

Want tabs on the side? Good luck with Chrome. Good luck with alternate Webkit browsers with not enough marketshare to attract extensions.

You obviously haven't tried the new "Australis" version of Firefox. It's stupid and dumbed down and in a few months it will be your only choice unless you stay with an older version of Firefox forever...

The one thing that that has always made Firefox better than all the other browsers is the ability to do extensive customizing. But they are hard at work fixing that. The new "Australis" build removes an enormous amount of customizability and is nothing but one giant Fuck You to users.

Tabs On Top -- No thanks, I want my tabs below the URL bar, where God intended them to be. Well, Australis says Fuck You, you're getting Tabs On Top whether you like it or not. And just removing the menu item and burying the setting in about:config isn't good enough. Even if you go into about:config and change the setting, it does nothing. Don't like Tabs On Top? Australis says: Fuck You.

There are only 2 toolbars -- Menu bar and Bookmarks toolbar. No more Add-On Bar, which means the Status Bar Extension (among others) doesn't work because THERE'S NO FUCKING PLACE TO PUT IT. It's bad enough they removed a feature and forced people to rely on an extension, but now, Australis says: You want a Status Bar? Fuck You.

The Back and Forward buttons are now welded to the left side of the URL Bar and can't be moved. The Reload Button has been replaced with a swirly arrow that is welded to the far right side of the URL Bar and can't be moved. And the Stop Button is gone completely. Want to arrange your buttons the same way you've had for years? Australis says: Fuck you.

Want text labels with your buttons? Australis says: Fuck you.

I could go on and on but fuck it I give up. If I want a browser with a shitty UI that can't be changed I'll use Internet Explorer or Chrome.

Re:ABANDON SHIP (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45487487)

You obviously do not use, nor rely on, extensions. Extensions for Chrome/Chromium pale in comparison to what extensions for Firefox can do.

Want tabs on the side? Good luck with Chrome. Good luck with alternate Webkit browsers with not enough marketshare to attract extensions.

the new "Australis" version of Firefox. It's stupid and dumbed down and in a few months it will be your only choice unless you stay with an older version of Firefox forever...

Nope, not even for a second, snipped the rest because there's already an extension out restoring everything you mentioned. [mozilla.org]

Re:ABANDON SHIP (1)

nullchar (446050) | about 5 months ago | (#45487491)

Wow, that sounds incredibly horrendous.

Hopefully just like Gnome2 -> 3, there will be a large community supported fork to maintain a customizable browser.

Re:ABANDON SHIP (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45487675)

Hopefully just like Gnome2 -> 3, there will be a large community supported fork to maintain a customizable browser.

Why fork? It's just UI, there's already a Firefox extension [mozilla.org] that reverses everything mentioned. Firefox is still customisable albeit via extensions more than drag/drop now.

Re:ABANDON SHIP (1)

X-Dopple (213116) | about 5 months ago | (#45487565)

No need to abandon ship or to hang on to an older version. Pale Moon has been fixing Firefox's stupidity for quite a while now. Give it a try.

Re:ABANDON SHIP (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45487141)

>backed by an organization that stands for what Mozilla USED to stand for

Careful, you're being being WAY too transparent. People will have no trouble seeing that Google pays more than 90% of your paycheck if you don't try harder.

And on the off-chance that you're just a fucking moron, I sure hope that you've tried Firefox in the last year, because it's nothing like you described. In fact it screams of desperation to say that.. perhaps Firefox is finally becoming a threat to Chrome again, and you're desperate to pretend it isn't?

Why doesn't Google just cut the cord already (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45486963)

Do they just pay for the default homepage to use Google? Does anyone actually leave that there for long after installing Firefox? I always change it. I imagine most Firefox users would switch to Chrome if Firefox croaked, seeing as IE didn't satisfy them in the first place. They would dramatically grow their user base if Firefox died.

Why This is Dangerous (2, Insightful)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | about 5 months ago | (#45486969)

As I see it, there are two main problems with this situation:

(1) The obvious - that Google will have undue influence over Mozilla's design decisions. Some will argue that is impossible, etc. Maybe so, but money talks.

(2) The less obvious - that Google will fall on hard times and Mozilla will find themselves high and dry. Some people argue that Bing and other search engines also bid to be default search engine in Firefox so Mozilla could just switch to one of them for a nearly equivalent revenue stream. But the main reason there were other bids is because Google is so dominate. If Google tanks, then the other search engines will be in a stronger position and won't need Mozilla as much as they do today. So the money they are likely to offer will also be reduced.

Re:Why This is Dangerous (2)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 5 months ago | (#45487125)

"As I see it, there are two main problems with this situation:"

Why do you consider [1] to be a problem?

Did you read TFA? The "revenue" in question here is royalties from advertisements. Many, many other people & companies get royalties from Google for advertisements. Do you claim that Google is likely to "influence" all of them, too?

It's advertising revenue. If it isn't Google, it's going to be someone else. And it doesn't give Google any "leverage".

Re:Why This is Dangerous (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45487191)

Many, many other people & companies get royalties from Google for advertisements. Do you claim that Google is likely to "influence" all of them, too?

If Google is responsible for 90% of their revenue then yes I do. Tons of people deliberately design their websites to conform to what google considers "best practices" in order to get higher search rankings and thus more ad revenue. Whether you agree that what google calls best practices really are best practices is irrelevant, the people responsible for their website design are only doing because of google's influence.

Re:Why This is Dangerous (2)

rudy_wayne (414635) | about 5 months ago | (#45487407)

"As I see it, there are two main problems with this situation:"

Why do you consider [1] to be a problem?

Did you read TFA? The "revenue" in question here is royalties from advertisements. Many, many other people & companies get royalties from Google for advertisements. Do you claim that Google is likely to "influence" all of them, too?

It's advertising revenue. If it isn't Google, it's going to be someone else. And it doesn't give Google any "leverage".

No, you don't understand what is happening.

A default installation of Firefox contains a Google search box. This means that when people want to search for something they are most likely to use that search box, which dives traffic to Google, which greatly improves Google's chance of making money from the ads associated with search results.

In return for Mozilla putting a Google search box in Firefox, Google currently pays Mozilla $300 Million a year. That's just under a billion dollars over the course of their 3 year contract, which expires at the end of 2014.

This is why Do Not Track if off by default. This is why ad-blocking isn't built in to Firefox. If you think that Google giving Mozilla a billion dollars doesn't give them any influence, well, that's your problem.
 

Re:Why This is Dangerous (1)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about 5 months ago | (#45487533)

"A default installation of Firefox contains a Google search box. This means that when people want to search for something they are most likely to use that search box, which dives traffic to Google, which greatly improves Google's chance of making money from the ads associated with search results."

Okay. Fine. BUT... whenever I install a fresh version of Firefox on a machine, the first thing I do is get rid of the Google search box. It takes 3 moue clicks plus one drag and drop. It literally takes 3 seconds.

I repeat: if it weren't Google they'd be getting ad revenue from somewhere else.

People who use Firefox are, by and large, not the same group that use Chrome and Safari. They are far more likely to customize their browser, and tend to be more familiar with how to do it. (Else they likely wouldn't have installed Firefox in the first place.)

I simply don't see this as any kind of big issue.

Re:Why This is Dangerous (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45487535)

If you think that Google giving Mozilla a billion dollars doesn't give them any influence, well, that's your problem.

No, it's Microsoft's problem until they outbid Google. Nokia can tell you what happens as a company when you do a billion dollar deal with Microsoft.
The difference is Mozilla is a non-profit foundation.

Re:Why This is Dangerous (5, Insightful)

rahvin112 (446269) | about 5 months ago | (#45487157)

Google doesn't write a check to Firefox out of kindness. They get a cut of ad impressions from search referrals, just like any site that links their search to Google.

It's a big check because every time you search Google with Firefox then click an ad that results in a sale Mozilla gets a referral credit. The higher ad rates are the more money they get for click through. This is why Mozilla's Firefox revenue continues to grow, ad revenue (due to ad prices increasing) is going up and the part Google shares with referrals is a fixed percentage of that increasing price. When internet ad prices fell Mozilla's revenue from referrals went down, when they go up the amount goes up.

Because they are getting the money from the referral program there is no direct money and little to no influence. You could get the same referral money if you could write software that people used to search Google with. If anything Google is more beholden to Mozilla because of the amount of traffic Mozilla kicks towards Google. For example, if Mozilla were to switch the default search in Firefox to Bing Google would lose a significant number of searches and ad impressions. This is one of the reasons Google built the Chrome browser, they didn't want to be so dependent on Mozilla and every user using Chrome means a smaller Cut to Mozilla and more money Google retains.

Yes, Mozilla needs the money, but changing the default to Bing would harm Google more than Mozilla and ultimately keeping that default setting on Google is far more important to Google which basically limits or even eliminates Google's influence over Mozilla.

Re:Why This is Dangerous (1)

Salgat (1098063) | about 5 months ago | (#45487295)

Google could simply pull their bid next time around, that is the influence people are talking about. As soon as Google shows no interest you are left with receiving lower bids since Bing and Yahoo would be the remaining parties bidding for Mozilla's default search engine (assuming they don't also pull their bids after seeing that Google has no interest in them). Imagine Google pulls out and Mozilla can only manage to get a bid for half the amount, that results in almost half their income wiped out due to Google.

Re:Why This is Dangerous (1)

quantaman (517394) | about 5 months ago | (#45487523)

Checking the search dropdown:

Google, Yahoo, bing, Amazon, DuckDuckGo, eBay, twitter, Wikipedia

I'm pretty sure Wikipedia doesn't give a referral kickback, what about the others? How much do they pay? The contract between Mozilla and Firefox isn't the standard ad referral contract, there's only 4 big browsers, Chrome, Safari, IE, and Mozilla. Google doesn't care about referral revenue for their own browser, and IE is owned by their biggest competitor, Apple might be interested but they've already got a ton of cash. Mozilla is probably the only one for whom search referral cash is relevant.

Mozilla could threaten to make Yahoo or Bing the default if Google cuts their cash too much and that would definitely hurt, but that's still a huge dependency.

Re:Why This is Dangerous (2)

MacDork (560499) | about 5 months ago | (#45487333)

The web is broken anyway. CAs can't be trusted. Client-Server architecture funnels all data into what amounts to massive NSA honeypots. And look, we're right back to where we were with Windows/IE, except now it's Android/Blink with Google propping up Mozilla to pretend they are competitors.

On the developer end of things, HTML5 sucks. We still can't even rename buttons on a javascript confirm dialog. You need something like SASS just to make CSS usable, and God help you if you have a client that wants tables that work like native ones in OS X.

Oh, and the shepherd of this monstrosity? The guy who preached openness and collaboration? Hollywood asked him for DRM and he's all like, "Sound legit." [theguardian.com]

The web is doomed. Not because native apps are going to take it out. It's because it is broken and the leadership has all wandered off in their own self interested directions. Something better is going to come along and the web will be remembered fondly, just like newsgroups.

Re:Why This is Dangerous (1, Insightful)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 5 months ago | (#45487781)

the web broke the day they stopped separating tagged elements from how they RENDER.

for those that forgot - the web was NEVER supposed to by wizzywig. the browser (lynx, included) was supposed to render the way it saw fit. you want that button on the bottom right? too bad - the browser decided otherwise. deal with it. the browser knows best about the user's screen size, font size, etc.

but nooooo. the web went 'all microsoft' (to coin a phrase) and they perverted the golden idea of content being NOT tied to display formats.

the web broke about 10 yrs ago and its been getting worse every year.

Is this Google calling the tune or... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45486979)

Another, perhaps more likely possibility, is that Google is worrying about what could happen if they didn't fund Mozilla:

1) a direct competitor like Amazon or Microsoft might step in to take their place

-or-

2) FF could move in a direction of privacy advocacy, and set up defaults that would defeat the tracking and content-pushing policies of big sites like Google and Macromedia

Re:Is this Google calling the tune or... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45487161)

1) a direct competitor like Amazon or Microsoft might step in to take their place

Yes, this is why the figure has increased to 90%. It's not because Mozilla is more reliant on Google, it's because Google is more reliant on Mozilla. Yahoo and Microsoft were bidding against Google for the contract when it was up for renewal at the end of 2011. As a consequence Mozilla managed to negotiate a better deal from Google than they had had previously. The current deal is worth about $1 billion over three years.

Google money = Chromification of Firefox (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45487005)

That would explain the Chrome-esque Australis theme that just hit Nightly on Monday. I switched to the Pale Moon fork on Windows, but have yet to find a suitable alternative for Mac.

Re:Google money = Chromification of Firefox (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45487755)

You could just install an extension [mozilla.org] to reverse the Chromification.

An enviable position (5, Interesting)

TheloniousToady (3343045) | about 5 months ago | (#45487083)

What a position to be in: you give away all your products but are well funded by a wealthy patron. Yet the patron gives away a product comparable to your primary product, and gives away a service that provides many of the features of your secondary product.

Wealthy patrons are nothing new, and those who rely on patronage have always been in a precarious position. But rarely have they been in direct competition with their patrons.

Re:An enviable position (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45487423)

Wait.. Google is giving away Android phones? Mozilla's secondary product is Firefox OS, they don't develop the Thunderbird product anymore, it has moved to ESR and just inherits whatever updates are made at the same platform level as Firefox.

Re:An enviable position (1)

Gavagai80 (1275204) | about 5 months ago | (#45487649)

Google is giving away the Android OS in the same way that Mozilla is giving away Firefox OS. Both OSes are free.

Re:An enviable position (2)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about 5 months ago | (#45487789)

android is most certainly NOT free for oems!

for you and me, we can get source and do most of what we want. oem's have to pay and pay dearly to get access and sell phones with android on it.

its never been free, in any sense of the word.

Somewhat Unnerving (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45487477)

It may not be a popular opinion, but Google have way too much influence over the Internet/WWW. I have known for ages that Firefox rely on Google, but this latest news is actually unnerving somewhat, because it seems that short of IE, no browser ships without traces of Google embedded. This, too, is disturbing. Your opinion may vary, and that's OK...

Re:Somewhat Unnerving (1)

Gavagai80 (1275204) | about 5 months ago | (#45487663)

It's disturbing that you haven't figured out how to change your default search engine.

Re:Somewhat Unnerving (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45487713)

I think you misunderstand. I know perfectly well how to change my browser parameters. I'm an IT guy for going on 20 years. I'm somewhat unnerved by how much influence Google have over the Internet/WWW. I was indicating that there is not a browser out there, short of IE, that is not influenced by Google in some way. Why not ship browsers free of search engines and allow the user to choose for himself. I dislike how strong Google have become. No one player should have great influence over too much.

Re:Somewhat Unnerving (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45487751)

"no browser ships without traces of Google embedded"

Wow. That's so vague that it's probably not even wrong.

It's like, everything is connected to everything, man.

Re:Somewhat Unnerving (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#45487787)

Like, totally, man! Like I'm the Tok'ra of Jaffa legend and stuffs, dudes. Like, wows and stuffs...

Interesting that Google sponsors competition (1)

MSRedfox (1043112) | about 5 months ago | (#45487485)

I find it interesting that Google effectively sponsors competition to their Chrome browser. I wonder if it's to keep pressure up against Microsoft Internet Explorer.

Re:Interesting that Google sponsors competition (1)

Tony Isaac (1301187) | about 5 months ago | (#45487733)

It might help Google avoid anti-trust lawsuits from the Justice department.

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...