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!

What's Next For Mozilla?

timothy posted more than 9 years ago | from the what-isn't dept.

Mozilla 528

ezberry writes "After releasing version 1.0 of Firefox, what's ahead for the Mozilla Foundation and the venerable Firefox browser? With 6% of the market, and a notable exclusion from Google's desktop search software, PC World states that Mozilla may be thinking about adding desktop searching to the browser. Using plugins from third party vendors (and more), desktop searching may become a regular part of firefox. The article also talks about Mozilla improving firefox's popup blocker and getting OEMs to include firefox on their machines."

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

SCOTT LOCKWOOD IS A COWARDLY COCK-SUCKING FAGGOT! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10775489)

YOU FAG!

Re:SCOTT LOCKWOOD IS A COWARDLY COCK-SUCKING FAGGO (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10775568)

IAWTP

Yay! First post! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10775492)

Since when is Firefox only 6% of the marker??

On demand porn (5, Funny)

kesler (576674) | more than 9 years ago | (#10775493)

If they had on demand porn, it would have a 70% market share.

Re:On demand porn (2, Funny)

datbox (800756) | more than 9 years ago | (#10775567)

I can just see it now.. It's their evil-twin browser...

Firecrotch!

Re:On demand porn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10775684)

I can just see it now.. It's their evil-twin browser...

Firecrotch!


Don't forget ThunderSchlong, depending on the end user's preference.

FireCrotch and ThunderSchlong... swelling the horizons of internet content.

Re:On demand porn (1)

bhtooefr (649901) | more than 9 years ago | (#10775709)

With older versions of Firefox, I can actually make it ID as Firecrotch/0.10 (Firefox/0.10 polymorph) (all of this is IIRC, except the fact that Firesomething exists).

Re:On demand porn (5, Funny)

JFlex (763276) | more than 9 years ago | (#10775602)

I can see it now, Sublime with RSS feeds... *Pull down menu* ->"Cute redhead laying by pool" ->"Hot blonde playing with teddy bear" etc...

Speaking of percentages... (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10775612)

...where the hell did that "6% of the market" figure come from. Yesterday, the statistics all the news sites that were covering the launch quoted that Firefox had 3 percent [pcworld.com] - I know that the launch was successful, but not enough to double the share overnight.

Re:Speaking of percentages... (1, Funny)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 9 years ago | (#10775638)

Well, it always depends on the market you take as base.

I guess Firefox has 100% of the Firefox market. :-)

Re:On demand porn (5, Informative)

mojo17 (607881) | more than 9 years ago | (#10775640)

Already thought of :-) Check out Pornzilla [squarefree.com]
Now the fox is ready to take over the world.

Yeah. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10775715)

We need an integrated empornium.us [empornium.us] search'n'download bar!

Rank them by importance (5, Insightful)

liquidpele (663430) | more than 9 years ago | (#10775497)

***1. Get Venders to include with their machines.
2. Better popup blocking, scam site warnings.
3. Put Desktop searching, etc, into *extentions*. That's what they're there for.

Re:Rank them by importance (5, Insightful)

pbranes (565105) | more than 9 years ago | (#10775562)

My in-laws recently bought an emachine from walmart. It came with winxp sp1, ms works, some other stupid software, and **netscape 6.2**! That software is so old and outdated that they are just begging for someone from firefox to come along and show them how much better firefox is than netscape 6.2, and how emachines' customers would be happier and benefit more from firefox being in the default install.

About desktop search, I don't really view it as that important of a feature and not worth too much time. How often do most people search for files on their hard drive - my guess is not that often. I think of it like this - whenever my internet connection goes down either at home or at work, I don't sit there and start browsing my hard drive - that's boring. I turn off my monitor and go do something else. All of my information is tied to the internet - not to my hard drive, so a desktop search feature, for me, is very low on my priority scale.

Re:Rank them by importance (1)

Simon Garlick (104721) | more than 9 years ago | (#10775579)

Oh man, Google Desktop Search is a must-have for me. I can't imagine how I ever lived without it.

Re:Rank them by importance (1)

liquidpele (663430) | more than 9 years ago | (#10775635)

Netscape is not listed as pre-installed software on the emachines website... strange. I think they might have bought a returned machine. ;)

I agree about the desktop search though. It's an extention, or if you really really want to, make it an option on install.

Re:Rank them by importance (1)

16K Ram Pack (690082) | more than 9 years ago | (#10775589)

How could you actually do anti-scam?

Re:Rank them by importance (2, Interesting)

KoopaTroopa (549540) | more than 9 years ago | (#10775643)

Perhaps FireFox could examine the page you were viewing, its domain name, et al, and then compare them to the top result in a Google search for the same information. If the content was close to the same but the sites were distinct (and especially if the links were very different coming off of the page) might that not suggest a scam site? At least, a certain kind of scam site. Another flag might be JavaScript showing false URLs in the status bar on hover.

I guess that some of the criteria above might be triggered by mirror sites, but that seems like the kind of thing that might be resolved (in my uneducated opinion, so be kind) by entries in something like robots.txt on the main server -- perhaps in the form of "hey these sites are my mirrors, so don't flag them as scam sites, FireFox!".

*shrug* I'm sure there's a fatal flaw somewhere there.

Re:Rank them by importance (1)

jimicus (737525) | more than 9 years ago | (#10775679)

Speaking of "getting vendors to preinstall", do Microsoft still demand contracts banning the vendor from installing third-party software?

I was under the impression that these had been deemed illegal - but Microsoft still do it.

Re:Rank them by importance (3, Interesting)

ninthwave (150430) | more than 9 years ago | (#10775721)

They don't demand it but with some remarks from Balmer about third party apps causing security holes, I believe they are trying to go back to the premise they had years ago that if you install anything on it you "void the warranty" so to speak.

But Balmer's speeches and reality some times diverge greatly.

Thats all they need (4, Insightful)

tpgp (48001) | more than 9 years ago | (#10775499)

getting OEMs to include firefox on their machines.

is all thats needed for world dominance (tm)

Plug-in or regular part? (5, Interesting)

Rich Klein (699591) | more than 9 years ago | (#10775501)

Which will it be? A plug-in or a regular part of Firefox? I'd be okay with a plug-in, but Firefox doesn't need extra bloat, and I don't need another way to search for things on my own computer.

Re:Plug-in or regular part? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10775559)

ditto, i rather see this as an optional plugin, hopefully Mozilla's dev team will see it this way too, it is easier to update a plugin or extention than update the whole browser, and they need to consider possible exploites in this feature too...

We don't need another EMACS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10775633)

I agree completely. It's bloated enough as it is. What ever happened to keeping things lean and mean?

Re:Plug-in or regular part? (1)

TEB_78 (748262) | more than 9 years ago | (#10775706)

I agree, if anyone needs this let it be a plug-in. The main reason why I use Firefox is because it's just a browser.
I used to use Opera, but they wants to be everything (chat-client,mail-client, etc), I just want a browser.

LDAP based profiles please (5, Insightful)

nick-less (307628) | more than 9 years ago | (#10775504)

still missing from ns4...

Re:LDAP based profiles please (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10775520)

Why is anybody still using NS4?

Re:LDAP based profiles please (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10775563)

Integration with LDAP.

Re:LDAP based profiles please (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10775588)

What have you against LDAP profiles? It means roaming profiles, with all your bookmarks, account settings, addressbooks, stored on a central server. That's why I moded the grand-parent insightful.

4 steps to success (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10775506)

1 Build great browser
2 Displace IE
3 ???
4 Profit!

Re:4 steps to success (4, Funny)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 9 years ago | (#10775700)

Well, there are so many n-steps-to-success schemes (with n=3 being the most common). But I've found the most efficient scheme:
  1. ???
  2. Profit


You might think that
  1. Profit
would be even more efficient, but I've tried it and it didn't work at all. :-)

Pre-installed (2, Insightful)

Ender_Stonebender (60900) | more than 9 years ago | (#10775513)

Pre-installed Firefox would be oh so sweet.

Especially if it was with a major manufacturer (Dell, Compaq/HP, or Gateway). I bet IE's marketshare would plummet.

--Ender

and dell's incentive would be what, exactly? (4, Insightful)

RMH101 (636144) | more than 9 years ago | (#10775533)

pissing off the company that sells them OEM operating systems at very low prices?

Re:and dell's incentive would be what, exactly? (4, Interesting)

Walkiry (698192) | more than 9 years ago | (#10775576)

> pissing off the company that sells them OEM operating systems at very low prices?

No, more like cutting down their service calls when people's browsers stop downloading and running viral/spyware shit without their knowledge.

And Microsoft's incentive would be what, exactly? (3, Interesting)

DarkEdgeX (212110) | more than 9 years ago | (#10775594)

Pissing off the company that sells their OEM operating system pre-installed at very low prices?

It's a two-way street. I don't know exactly how much Dell pays MS for their OEM OS's, but something tells me it wouldn't be a major hurt to buck the system. Besides, I imagine Dell and Microsoft have a contract in place for prices-- I doubt Microsoft can just arbitrarily hike the prices up because Dell grows a spine.

Re:And Microsoft's incentive would be what, exactl (1)

TykeClone (668449) | more than 9 years ago | (#10775652)

I doubt Microsoft can just arbitrarily hike the prices up because Dell grows a spine.

But they could if a clause in the contract specifically does not allow for the installation of alternative browsers.

Isn't that one of the issues that Microsoft got in trouble for during the antitrust suit - disallowing OEMs from selling alternative software with the machines?

Re:And Microsoft's incentive would be what, exactl (1)

liquidpele (663430) | more than 9 years ago | (#10775653)

MS already tried to dictate what would be installed (the BeOS vs MS lawsuit).
Dell caved, and Be sued MS later for millions.

I don't think Dell would cave again though, with all the MS lawsuits and mud being thrown around, they would have a really good chance to win, and maybe even get better prices out of it.

Here in Europe... (1)

Chembryl (596546) | more than 9 years ago | (#10775704)

That would not be a problem, unless of course MS win their appeal.

Re:Pre-installed (5, Insightful)

cortana (588495) | more than 9 years ago | (#10775553)

Until Microsoft jacked up the price for anyone wishing to distribute a non-IE browser.

Besides, come Windows update time, the user would be presented with the following:

WARNING: Windows Update could not detect a secure browser on your system. Using an insecure browser may make you more vulnerable to hackers and viruses. Would you like to install a secure browser (Microsoft Internet Explorer 6) now? Cancel [OK]

Re:Pre-installed (1)

BHearsum (325814) | more than 9 years ago | (#10775585)

p.s. windows update only works with IE.

Re:Pre-installed (2, Insightful)

cmad_x (723313) | more than 9 years ago | (#10775558)

As long as IE was installed as well, the customers (accustomed to IE) would probably use IE again and not even notice Firefox, or try it once and then abandon it. Would be great though, if it really worked.

Re:Pre-installed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10775631)

Unfortunatly M$ have the manufacturers by the balls. Pressure from M$ regarding OEM agreements and pricing is one of the things that have (allegedly) stopped people like Dell installing Linux on their desktops. (Yeah I know they have some servers with it on)

Dell "Oh by the way M$, we're going to install Firefox on our new PC's 'cos it does what it says on the tin."

M$ "Right Ho. No problem. Oh by the way, heres the new cost of your OEM O/S licence, and would you please just bend over for a minute?"

Exclusion from Google Desktop search? (3, Informative)

jolyonr (560227) | more than 9 years ago | (#10775522)

Not here - integrates into Firefox just fine here.
Jolyon

Re:Exclusion from Google Desktop search? (1)

VC (89143) | more than 9 years ago | (#10775556)

Yeah i didnt know it was excluded either.. Guess ill have to stop using it on a daily basis now. And i really liked it too. /sarcasm

Re:Exclusion from Google Desktop search? (5, Insightful)

cortana (588495) | more than 9 years ago | (#10775577)

Possibly they were referring to how GDS does not index your Firefox cache, history and bookmarks. Unless it does, and I didn't notice :)

Re:Exclusion from Google Desktop search? (1)

keeleysam (792221) | more than 9 years ago | (#10775623)

it indexes my Mozilla 1.7.3 cache, and so it should do the same for Firfox

Re:Exclusion from Google Desktop search? (4, Informative)

tb()ne (625102) | more than 9 years ago | (#10775624)

It does not. Worse though (for me) is that it does not index/search Mozilla mail folders.

Re:Exclusion from Google Desktop search? (2, Insightful)

SyntaxError (118900) | more than 9 years ago | (#10775630)

The point of the parent was that Google Desktop Search had an opportunity to include Firefox (with logo) on their page: http://desktop.google.com/ [google.com] , as well as in the indexing portion of the software. Google had a huge opportunity to integrate an amazing project into their beta GDS, but decided to leave it out.

regardless (1)

Ambient_Developer (825456) | more than 9 years ago | (#10775526)

Mozilla is doing "goog things" and I will continue to support their efforts, they have revolutionized browsing in my opinion.. There are features on firefox that are seen no where else in the market. I support innovation, and creative thinking ( most often in a monetary way :-) )

Re:regardless (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10775565)

was that supposed to be google? or good?

Re:regardless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10775584)

opps "good", talk about a mix-up.

What's next ? - more market penetration ! (2, Interesting)

bushboy (112290) | more than 9 years ago | (#10775527)

Continued market penetration is what should be the main focus now Firefox 1 is out - and of course, as we're seeing, it certainly is.

If Firefox can reach the 10% threshold, it should snowball from there.

I'm personally converting everyone I know - usually against thier will - to switch to Firefox.

With a 10% + market share, it'll be a major boost for Open Source !

I've been saying it for months.. (4, Interesting)

yetdog (760930) | more than 9 years ago | (#10775532)

Firefox is the app that will save the Internet. From blocking popups to auto-install worms/viruses - if IE was left to roam free, unchallenged, the net would become a niche market for the people who could either a-stand it, or b-were savvy enough to get around it. Firefox is about bringing the 'net back to the people.

Re:I've been saying it for months.. (5, Funny)

eric_brissette (778634) | more than 9 years ago | (#10775696)

I think there is a Rage Against the Machine song in there somewhere.

improve the popup blocker? (1)

Squeezer (132342) | more than 9 years ago | (#10775540)

what needs to be done? I think its just right, blocks everything except javascript open in new window popups when i click on a link. Its a lot better then IE (medium setting lets too many thru, and high blocks everything, even javascript open in new window when i click on the link popups. anyone know what i'm talking about?

Imperial overstretch (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10775545)

Beware of trying to extend a browser into a platform. It may just end up being bloated to the point where people don't like browsing with it. XUL has already made Firefox deathly slow on computers more than 3 years old.

Re:Imperial overstretch (2, Interesting)

displaced80 (660282) | more than 9 years ago | (#10775619)

Funny, I read things the other way round...

The platform's already there. They just used it to make a browser (and Thunderbird, each Suite component, Venkman, etc.)

XUL enabled Firefox to happen. Not the other way around.

Firefox wouldn't be the only thing that's deathly slow on a 3 year old machine ;-). Besides, I also use Firefox on a 3 year old iMac (a whole 500MHz G3!) and it's certainly not deathly slow.

Re:Imperial overstretch (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 9 years ago | (#10775733)

I think the parent ment it is deadly slow on a 3 year old machine that was near out of date when he bought it. Like a 300 mhz P2/P3. So in actually the computer is probably around 5-6 years old.

Venerable? (2, Insightful)

jazman_777 (44742) | more than 9 years ago | (#10775546)

Venerable?! "Commanding respect by virtue of age, dignity, character, or position." Who are you kidding? Yourself, mainly.

Re:Venerable? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10775575)

Get back to work Redmond troll.

What's next? (5, Insightful)

palad1 (571416) | more than 9 years ago | (#10775554)

Turn sunbird into a really kick-ass iCal / Outlook replacement goddamnnit!

Re:What's next? (1)

klaasb (523629) | more than 9 years ago | (#10775609)

They could probably use the Evolution source for that.......

Re:What's next? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10775714)

Ummm yes but a fairly important part of Outlook's calendaring is the Exchange server. Same applies to Lotus Notes. I can't understand why there isn't an open source calendar server. It would save companies a fortune and could make OS consultants a fortune by installing it.

Re:What's next? (2, Informative)

palad1 (571416) | more than 9 years ago | (#10775726)

There is an open source calendar server, kind of. I've heard only good things coming from people using Suse. http://www.suse.com/us/business/products/openexcha nge/

Desktop Google? (1)

Nate B. (2907) | more than 9 years ago | (#10775566)

Is this really a big deal, or is Google kissing up to the Borg? I don't know what DG is about as I really couldn't care less personally, but I think if FF incorporates a search capability for the local system, that would be a killer app for a lot of folks.

BTW, good job on FF 1.0, Mozilla developers. It's great that my browsing from Debian takes a back seat to no other browser (in fact, it's been that way for some time now). Cheers all around!

- Nate >>

Re:Desktop Google? (1)

Simon Garlick (104721) | more than 9 years ago | (#10775695)

I use Google Desktop Search with Firefox every day. No idea where this "exclusion" thing came from.

Boobs (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10775578)

Big breasted foxgirls on fire advertising web browser.

Plz.

An IE icon (3, Insightful)

klaasb (523629) | more than 9 years ago | (#10775581)

When I install Firefox on a Windows PC, I replace the standard icon with the IE icon. Then put that icon in the place where the real IE icon is.

Re:An IE icon (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10775686)

you might want to look at the Luna [intraplanar.net] (classic XP) or LunaBlue [intraplanar.net] themes. That way you can even make it look the same!

Marketing problem (5, Insightful)

suougibma (224348) | more than 9 years ago | (#10775582)

I think Mozilla's biggest problem is their marketing strategy, or lack thereof. Of course us geeks know what it is but we only make up what, about that 6% of the market share they have? Talk to anyone outside the nerd world and they will likely stare blankley at you when you mention FireFox or Mozilla. Marketing and consumer awareness should be their next step.

Re:Marketing problem (1)

chrisgeleven (514645) | more than 9 years ago | (#10775596)

That is why they are going to be taking out an ad in the New York Times and are most likely working on other projects. Their target now isn't the geeks (they have most/all of those), but everyday internet users.

Will IE copy Firefox? (5, Interesting)

arbi (704462) | more than 9 years ago | (#10775583)

Personally, I think Firefox redefines the websurfing experience. I have Firefox as default browser on all my machines.

However, what is to stop MSIE from copying all the features that made Firefox so good? Are simple features like "tabbed browsing" patented/patentable?

Re:Will IE copy Firefox? (5, Insightful)

RandoX (828285) | more than 9 years ago | (#10775622)

Nothing stops MSIE from copying. Opera had tabbed browsing at least 5 years ago, and Firefox copied them.

//Disclaimer: I'm not sure Opera was the first browser to have it, my point is that it's not a unique feature...

feature request (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10775586)

how about an integrated mail client, calendar program, HTML editor, etc. Things to make firefox a more fully featured suite.

Most people don't care (3, Insightful)

RandoX (828285) | more than 9 years ago | (#10775587)

about the browser. They'll just use whatever is easiest. If IE comes with the computer it's what they'll use. John Q Averageuser doesn't care about the politics or rhetoric behind Firefox or the security issues associated with IE. (S)He just wants to buy a new set of hubcaps on eBay. Replacing IE as the default installed browser on new computers is the only way to really get 'the masses' to use it.

For more development... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10775591)

It would be great if many of the Firefox developers (who clearly have lots of time on their hands...) could concentrate on some of the other applications, specifically Sunbird/Calendar and Thunderbird - if there was even basic contact and calendar sharing between users, it would take off in a big way in the business community.

Syncronisation with PDA/Phones is already proposed in the roadmap, but has a long journey ahead of it, and could do with some extra development!

How about.. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10775592)

Rendering Slashdot correctly for once. And without the use of "extensions". At the minimum can you at least supply a redraw command. I know, I know, it's open source, do it myself, rtfm..

Hmm (1)

Ventashar (826046) | more than 9 years ago | (#10775601)

How is Firefox going to be put on computers...since Windows is the OS for almost all these companies' computer's, don't they have a contract or something to make sure that these companies use IE for their comps instead of a 3rd party (FF) browser?

FireFox 1.2 with AdBlock? (1)

julie-h (530222) | more than 9 years ago | (#10775604)

I have Mozilla will start including some of the most used extentions like AdBlock and an advanced tab preferences!

Custom skins for OEM/distributors (1)

16K Ram Pack (690082) | more than 9 years ago | (#10775605)

Get major corporations involved, and let them get their names/logos/colours on the skins.

Desktop search!? (1)

Chris Kamel (813292) | more than 9 years ago | (#10775606)

Integrating desktop search sounds just plain stupid to me... When I install an internet browser I just want it to surf the net and display web pages, I don't want it searching my desktop and I don't want it making me coffee...

Mistake? (3, Insightful)

oddman (204968) | more than 9 years ago | (#10775611)

I think Google is going to regret not including Mozilla/Firefox/Thunderbird in their search features by default. I just don't understand their thinking on this, it's not like Mozilla, et al., use some kind of proprietary/obscure file format. How hard can it be to search what is basically nothing more than a text file?

How long will it take Google to back pedal after Mozilla provides its own solution (or has an extension.)

--Sunbird, the real reason we will all stop running MS somday.

Cornfused (4, Interesting)

RealProgrammer (723725) | more than 9 years ago | (#10775617)

A day out off the presses, and it's "venerable"?

...what's ahead for the Mozilla Foundation and the venerable Firefox browser?

The adjective "venerable" has 2 senses in WordNet [princeton.edu] .

  1. venerable -- (impressive by reason of age; "a venerable sage with white hair and beard")

  2. august, revered, venerable -- (profoundly honored; "revered holy men")

Are you talking about Netscape 7, Mozilla 1.x, Firefox 1.0, or what?

Popup Blocking improvements (2, Interesting)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 9 years ago | (#10775621)

A big improvement would be if you clicked the popup blocker icon that appears whenever a popup was blocked, instead of getting a dialog asking you if you wanted to allow popups on the whole site, it showed you a dialog to "release" individual popups.

We're already seeing sites like CNN telling us to turn off our popup blocker to use it. Rather than flooding us with popups because we have to turn it off for all of cnn, users would be able to just release the popups that were needed to proceed.

desktop-feedback@google.com (5, Informative)

loac (585499) | more than 9 years ago | (#10775639)

desktop-feedback@google.com to me


Oct 17
Thank you for your note. Google Desktop Search is only partially compatible with Mozilla and Mozilla Firefox. Desktop Search does not currently support Thunderbird.

How Desktop Search works with Mozilla and/or Mozilla Firefox:

If you install Desktop Search and open a Mozilla or Firefox browser window, you'll see a 'Desktop' link appear on the Google homepage. You can click this link to go to the Desktop Search homepage whenever you want to search with Desktop Search.

Webpages that you view in Mozilla and/or Firefox aren't added to your Desktop Search index, however, so you won't be able to find them with Desktop Search.

We realize that many of our users use Mozilla or Firefox as their primary browser and Thunderbird as their email program. We may consider adding increased Mozilla, Mozilla Firefox, and Thunderbird support in a future version of Desktop Search.

So then ... (1, Funny)

nospmiS remoH (714998) | more than 9 years ago | (#10775644)

... Firefox would be an inseparable part of the users operating system desktop? And would be deliverd as part of an OEM system?

What a novel idea.

Pre-installed isn't good enough (4, Insightful)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | more than 9 years ago | (#10775649)

Having FireFox pre-installed isn't good enough, take this example and imagine I'm a Joe Six Pack.

In the UK, if I bought a new PC with FF installed and then wanted to connect to the internet, I'd have to pick an ISP. They'd then send me a CD (or I'd pick it up from a shop) and that would auto install their customised version of Internet Explorer and tell FireFox to push off.

Back to square one again.

What is needed is to encourage ISPs such as AOL and BTInternet to provide FireFox as their browser.

Don't touch my browser (4, Insightful)

MicroBerto (91055) | more than 9 years ago | (#10775650)

If it makes it bigger, bulkier, or slower, then go away. I want my Firefox to stay FAST. Go make an extension.

The next big step is to continue to market it. Companies will realize how many problems using Firefox can alleviate, and as it gains more users and attention, it will gain more bug reports (you'd hope).

As mentioned in another thread, a vendor might want to include Firefox as the default browser (please include plugins) because they deal with SO many service calls regarding adware/spyware/viruses. I forget the statistic but it's mind-boggling and IE is costing vendors more money than it's worth.

Firefox on Fox News (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10775654)

I know this is a little off topic, but I was surprised to see them do a story about Firefox on Fox News (hmm firefox on fox how ironic). Anyways they did a small story about it on Neil Cavutos business show. They mentioned the fact that firefox is taking away market share from IE.

Why should I need desktop search? (2, Interesting)

Yaa 101 (664725) | more than 9 years ago | (#10775664)

It's a privacy invader, and probably windows users need it, we Linux users know exactly where files are because of how our filesystem is arranged.

So let's keep it a plugin for people that choose to have it, and not force people to it.

btw I am a XUL developer myself, SiteBar Sidebar is what i make.

What's Next (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10775672)

Update the Mozilla mail client would be my vote.

Java/Javascript On A Per Site Blocking (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10775673)

Might be nice let the user decide to have firefox block java and/or javascript from specific sites. Similar to the way it currectly blocks images. I surf with all images blocked and only allow them on specific sites.

Scalable Vector Graphics turned on by default (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10775677)

when that happens ... WOW

FIX THE F***ING SLASHDOT BUG! (0, Offtopic)

uberchicken (121048) | more than 9 years ago | (#10775683)

New York Times ad my arse.

Of all the sites that could be broken in Firefox, it has to be slashdot [slashdot.org] .

To some users, that's Firefox's fault. Explorer loads it fine. [Deinstall]

Re:FIX THE F***ING SLASHDOT BUG! (0)

uberchicken (121048) | more than 9 years ago | (#10775727)

What I meant of course was "thanks everyone for a great free browser".

and here's the correct link, since I clearly don't
know how to create an href:

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=217 52 7

What's next? = I'm worried (5, Insightful)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 9 years ago | (#10775689)

1) Feature creep
2) Feature creep
3) Increase market share

This is the point where much software starts to go down hill. It happens with open-source stuff as well as commercial applications. Things that one check box become a whole screen of options. The product goes from 10MB to 100MB. More "non-features" are added that average users don't want.

A better idea at this point is to go back and refactor portions of code that aren't clean. Or to eliminate options by making the browser smarter. Fix security holes.

If they want to add features beyond this point, I believe they should fork the product into some sort of "advanced" version. I don't want desktop searching. I don't want a better popup blocker (AFAIK - It is absolutely perfect as is!). I don't want even one checkbox in the preferences. Mozilla and Firefox do very well with mom & pops, which is very important for gaining market share. For every new feature or option, you alienate them a little more.

Even in a fast-moving field such as software, there is a time to slow down the pace or even stop.

Article does not say... (3, Informative)

superskippy (772852) | more than 9 years ago | (#10775710)

that desktop searching will be added to Firefox, just that they are considering making Firefox work with other people's desktop searching software (such as Google's).

What's next for *Mozilla*? (4, Funny)

YetAnotherName (168064) | more than 9 years ago | (#10775728)

Easy:
  1. Book a flight to Tokyo
  2. Terrorize the city
  3. Challenge Godzilla to a celebrity death-match

"Profit" is probably in there somewhere, too.

Or... (3, Insightful)

Dracolytch (714699) | more than 9 years ago | (#10775731)

As a novel idea, they could stick to what they're really good at, and continue to make a browser so good that the buzz gets louder. They're making great inroads and doing the near impossible by taking on MicroSoft and winning. It also means their success is fragile, and should be nurtured with care.

~D

What about.... more compatibility? (1)

The-Bus (138060) | more than 9 years ago | (#10775734)

There's still a couple of webpages I use for work which *only* work with IE. The bad part is, it's affecting my ability to recommend migration because those 2-3 sites are 50% of the sites that work uses. It has to do with some piece of JavaScript which Firefox doesn't recognize regarding dropdowns with, I believe, HierMenu. I can't show any examples because the pages aren't public. Being a proud user of FF but basically knowing zilch about Moz, is that something that can be brought up to them? If so, how? I did some searching on Google but couldn't find anything. Enlighten me, if possible.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?