Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Firefox New York Times Ad, Soon

timothy posted more than 9 years ago | from the uebermorgen dept.

Mozilla 389

An anonymous reader submits "CNet has an update on the status of the New York Times Firefox ad. According to the article, the delays are largely because of the decision to go with 10,000 names rather than the original 2500. The amount of content means each change to the ad requires 15 minutes of rendering. They also must be careful in crafting the ad, so that stay on the advocacy side of things. As a non-profit, they can still qualify for the under $50,000 rate, but if the ad is too commercial, they would need to pay the $130,000+ business rate. They say they're close to finishing, and the ad should run by mid-December, or at the latest, by Christmas. Firefox is also close to 10,000,000 downloads in the first month of release."

cancel ×

389 comments

nherzhul (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11036328)

GNAA

Re:nherzhul (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11036349)

Congratulations! You pass it!

GNAA 4 life, suckaz!

Re:nherzhul (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11036667)

That's not offtopic!

Firefox is by far the gayest "browser" on the planet.

Any gayer, and it would be the default browser of Appel's Fag OS X.

Think about it.

PS: Steve "Blow" Jobs really lives up to his name -- thanks for the wonderful wet night, Stevieboi.

PPS: CowboiKneel, you are still a disgusting fatbody and no, I don't want you to send me your worn g-strings.

Phew! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11036342)

I thought there was going to be a paid ad in Firefox!
Oh, the dangers of not reading the fine summary.

Firefox Hurting Linux (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11036344)

Not sure why you guys are so supportive of Firefox. It hurts Linux simply because it gives people less reason to move off Windows. Just FYI.

Re:Firefox Hurting Linux (4, Insightful)

LEgregius (550408) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036392)

Lots of people can't move from windows because the sites they need to look at only work in the Windows version of IE. If the marketshare for IE goes down because of FireFox, sites will follow by making their pages work on it. At the same time, people will have a familiar application they can use when switching, so I would guess that this may help other platforms.

Re:Firefox Hurting Linux (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11036445)

I usually move from doors, moving from windows is too much impratical, and it looks suspicious to neighbors they call the cops when seeing you do that.

Re:Firefox Hurting Linux (2, Interesting)

jvagner (104817) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036458)

I think you're talking about corporate and intranet applications. I haven't used Windows or IE in years, and I can't think of one useful site I am unable to use because I surf exclusively in Mozilla/Firefox.

Marketshare would assume a commercial site; even my bank lets me use Firefox. .. Ah: I can think of one site that won't let me shop with Firefox -- Pitney Bowes (see sig). But I can complete my payments over the phone or through the mail, so it hasn't stopped me from using their service.

Re:Firefox Hurting Linux (2, Interesting)

RealAlaskan (576404) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036645)

I can think of one site that won't let me shop with Firefox -- Pitney Bowes

Look into Neopost, Hasler and Postalia (now Francotype?). The secret is to switch from one to another every few years, so that you are always getting their low, introductory rates. If you're using the small, one-piece machines, that's eminently practical.

Re:Firefox Hurting Linux (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11036581)

Case in point: MLXchange, an on-line real-estate database which ONLY supports new versions of IE....i'm guessing this is the case because they took advantage of certain flaws in the software?

Re:Firefox Hurting Linux (5, Insightful)

Tyrdium (670229) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036403)

*cough*
Smells like a troll...

Anywho, I'll take a shot at this. Firefox and other Free, multi-platform software (Thunderbird, OpenOffice.org, etc.) reduce dependence on Windows, because people aren't stuck with Windows-specific programs. For me, the only thing stopping me from moving to Linux is gaming (I don't believe Cedega supports the games I play). Basically, Microsoft's got my "patronage" hanging by a thread, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Re:Firefox Hurting Linux (1, Offtopic)

FictionPimp (712802) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036429)

Check out transgamings new game database. With the release of 4.2 a lot of new directX 9c games are supported.

Re:Firefox Hurting Linux (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11036460)

Tyrdium, you're a troll. What an idiotic response, "Smells like a troll".

So easy to state, yet so difficult to prove.

Re:Firefox Hurting Linux (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11036578)

Yeah, gaming. It's pretty painful not to be able to play most games in Linux. We have more of our share than first person shooters, though. :) Also, if it weren't for the video card on my laptop, I'd be playing NWN.

I may soon inherit another PC and am seriously contemplating keeping it Windows-based for games and some web dev. As for a general advantage, Windows still has a better software-install system. You run it, it installs, you're happy. With Linux, sure you've got various package managers but it's still a hunt for compatibility. Of course you can do what firefox does and install it in ~/ -- which I'm not too fond of.

I prefer and use linux on my main PC...but occasionally have to borrow a Win32 machine to open stuff and access some windows-only cruft.

You've gotta be kidding (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11036404)

If anything, Firefox moves people yet another step away from Windows. The more people see the futility of hanging onto M$ products due to superior alternatives being available, the more likely they will say "Hey, why am I still using Windows anyway?" I, for one, plan to migrate away from Windows 100% and this is a step in the right direction.

Re:Firefox Hurting Linux (4, Insightful)

aklix (801048) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036411)

Eventually they will see the golden island... but for now they can stay on the sinking ship if they want to. I think most of the community is hoping that this will show the majority of people that open source is the better alternative. I haven't recieved one piece of adware since I switched to Firebird (and later to Firefox)

Re:Firefox Hurting Linux (3, Insightful)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036682)

I think most of the community is hoping that this will show the majority of people that open source is the better alternative. I haven't recieved one piece of adware since I switched to Firebird (and later to Firefox)

S'wunnerful, but pop-up and ads drive many sites, so don't expect too ringing an endorsement from sites which get zip-nada revenue from Firefox surfers. Expect many sites to continue to endorse IE, since it helps their bottom line.

Re:Firefox Hurting Linux (2, Insightful)

grennis (344262) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036412)

Actually, I think it helps migrate people to Linux because it gives them a browser they are already familiar with.

Just FYI ;)

Re:Firefox Hurting Linux (2, Insightful)

rabbit78 (822735) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036476)

I think people must come to open source software in general, before they start migrating to Linux. Still, the reputation of FOSS in the general public is not so good, Firefox could change this (although I have heard lots of complaints about it too, like the unability to automatically sort bookmarks out-of-the-box).
--
Roman
www.ontographics.com [ontographics.com]

Re:Firefox Hurting Linux (1)

rabbit78 (822735) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036526)

Service Not Available? Is slashdot.org itself slashdotted?

Re:Firefox Hurting Linux (1)

kff322 (752112) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036495)

It is a step in the right direction towards the general population using open source software. People will soon relize how much better Open Source once they become edicated on the topic.

~Patience is a virtue

Re:Firefox Hurting Linux (2, Insightful)

TheCubic (151533) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036496)

No it doesn't. If you can have the same web browser on both platforms, would logically that encourage or discourage someone to explore the other platform?

If Microsoft Office was out for linux, many of the people that can justify not moving to linux can no longer justify it. The less Windows-only applications being used, the less Windows-only environments.

Re:Firefox Hurting Linux (1)

mattgreen (701203) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036534)

Psst, there's more to life than making everyone else use your operating system. Although I realize that very idea is just anathema to some people.

Re:Firefox Hurting Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11036547)

Microsoft holds almost 100% of Web browser market share for many years.
People want Microsoft's domination to come to an end.
Open-source project finally gives Microsoft serious competition.
Microsoft's Web browser may finally be coming to an end.
Linux zealots still bitch.

Goddamn, you guys are unbelievable. Open-source software will never catch on with the kind of ignorant attitute displayed by the OSS community.

Re:Firefox Hurting Linux (1)

senzafine (630873) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036577)

Since when if the aim of Mozilla to get people off windows and onto linux? Though not everyone here feels the same way I'm sure....I think the support for FireFox is that there's finally a great browser on and off Windows. It doesn't matter to me if my neighbor stops using windows or not.

It's completely the opposite. (4, Insightful)

Spy der Mann (805235) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036675)

It's precisely the attitude of Linux elitist uber-geeks like you, that is keeping the chasm between Linux and Windows, uncrossable.

The REAL reason for people to have less reasons to move off Windows is because they DON'T find their favorite Windows software on Linux.

So, people need to adopt Firefox as part of their "favorite Windows software", and guess what, it's ALREADY on Linux!

What Linux REALLY needs to overthrow Windows, is a multiplatform RAD environment for C++ (and maybe *cough* Visual Basic *cough* equivalent), so Windows users will start developing multi-platform apps without having to code everything by hand.

Paraphrasing Archimedes: "Give me a cross-platform RAD, and I shall move the world".

So far, Firefox doesn't only give us a great cross-platform browser, but also XUL. And that does much more to help people build bridges between Linux and Windows, than your "screw windows users" attitude.

I'd like my money back. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11036346)

Uh, seriously, I paid to have my name on the ad. I hate to sound cheap and whatnot, but I was under the impression I would see my name on something that would be considered history-making and now I'm getting a fast one pulled on me?

Where do I go for refunds?

Your name is still on the ad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11036367)

Who said otherwise?

Too commercial? (5, Interesting)

trilks (794531) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036364)

They have to pay $130,000 if the ad is "too commercial"? How is that determined? And isn't a non-profit a non-profit, no matter what kind of ads they run?

Re:Too commercial? (5, Insightful)

maxchaote (796339) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036399)

isn't a non-profit a non-profit, no matter what kind of ads they run?

I can see it now... Wal-Mart's non-profit subsidiary, "The Friends of Sam Walton" (not a real charity) using their non-profit status to reduce Wal-Mart's advertising costs by over 50%.

I'm afraid checks and balances have to be in place, even if they occasionally slow something like Firefox down.

Re:Too commercial? (0)

mordors9 (665662) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036457)

I hope I am not being too cynical, but I hope it isn't decided by other major advertisers such as .... oh ... say Microsoft or AOL Time Warner or some other large company that might have reason to not like open source free software. Perhaps not even directly but due to fear of offending them.

Re:Too commercial? (1)

ndogg (158021) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036462)

Yes, but the NYT is a private organization and so is allowed more leeway in their definition of "too commercial." We can argue about it, but ultimately the answer to that question is up to NYT.

Re:Too commercial? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11036607)

NYT is a leftist rag. They hate companies except when companies give them money.

Re:Too commercial? (4, Interesting)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036618)

Not sure why the price tag is an issue since according to reports, they took in better than $250,000. Wonder where all that moo-lah is collecting interest?

Re:Too commercial? (1)

Fizzl (209397) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036644)

Well, the short story:
$250k is peanuts and shrinking daily.

Re:Too commercial? (1)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036665)

Since the $250,000 was _FOR_ the ad, how is it shrinking? Since this is the Firefox FanBoi Project, no one seems to be interested in asking exactly what's going on, just trust them with 250k?

Re:Too commercial? (5, Funny)

whome (122077) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036639)

I think it's more likely that the New york Times' advertising department will decline the ad because they're pissed off about Firefox users blocking all their popups.

If they mention using Firefox... (5, Informative)

jelwell (2152) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036366)

If they mention using Firefox then it's going to be commercial. Although the author of the ad says they have a special guarantee about the pricing, so New York Time's standard pricing may not matter.

Just because they're a non-profit doesn't make them a good cause. If they advocate using more standard compliant browsers rather than just Firefox or Mozilla browers they're more likely to qualify as an advocacy group rather than commercial entity. But based on the promotional drive I don't see how they can not mention Firefox directly.

Joseph Elwell.

Re:If they mention using Firefox... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11036422)

Just because they're a non-profit doesn't make them a good cause.

Exactly. The BSA [bsa.org] , for example, is a non-profit.

Re:If they mention using Firefox... (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11036491)

BSA is a good cause, just cos they interfere with your stolen softwares doesn't make them bad.

Re:If they mention using Firefox... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11036595)

Troll-feeding time...

1. I don't steal software. (I've even paid for WinRAR and mIRC.)
2. I don't object to companies working to stop piracy; I object to the way they go about doing it. In the BSA's case, I object to them intimidating companies into permitting "compliance audits" that look like government raids.

Re:If they mention using Firefox... (1)

madssj (697348) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036463)

It's quite easy not to mention firefox directly. "The best crossplatform oss browser arround" and so fourth :)

Re:If they mention using Firefox... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11036546)

they can show the logo

The reason... (5, Funny)

Adhemar (679794) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036372)

The trouble for Mozilla's ad campaign is that about 1,000 of the contributors didn't follow instructions in submitting their names. Now Davis is going through the list manually and contacting contributors who submitted Web addresses, company names, joke names and the like to clarify how they want to be listed in the ad.

Now I can understand the delay.

After all, would we really like to see Osama bin Laden support Firefox in the New York Times?

Re:The reason... (4, Funny)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036425)

You forgot Biggus Dickus and Naughtius Maximus. Of course, those names are a little out of date.

Re:The reason... (2, Funny)

EnronHaliburton2004 (815366) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036565)

Of course, those names are a little out of date.

Yeah, they are wayyy out of date. I think those people endorsed Netscape 4.0 in the 90's or something...

Re:The reason... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11036627)

Biggus Dickus

He has a wife, you know. Do you know what she's called? She's called... Incontinentia. Incontinentia Buttocks.

Re:The reason... (1)

grennis (344262) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036530)

What makes you think that would be a joke? Seems like a natural matchup to me.

Instead of names (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11036374)

They could print the binary in hex "Hey, type this, and enjoy the browser!"

Re:Instead of names (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11036427)

That is actually a really nice idea, and a clever way to promote open source.
It would perhaps be better to have the source code in the advert, but the idea remains that they are free to do that kind of thing, as only open software can.

Re:Instead of names (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11036537)

Sure, pay $15000 for an obscur ad promoting open source only to those who already knows about it. How productive. Don't target a broader audience, noooooo!

Re:Instead of names (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11036594)

Ach, I did not mean for them to do the NYT ad like that. It's just a good idea for another ad.

It would make more people understand what open source is about if you could say 'You hold the entire product, and all it's secrets, on the piece of paper in your hand.'.

Making it clear what open source is, and what it means is very important. Otherwise, it's just another software ad, and people will just glance over it.

Re:Instead of names (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11036525)

The could just take a full-page ad and have it say "1337"

Re:Instead of names (1)

sfraggle (212671) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036609)

Except that would take up more space. You'd need two hexadecimal characters to represent each character of every name, so the resulting text would be twice as long.

15 minutes of rendering (5, Funny)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036383)

> According to the article, the delays are largely because of the decision to go with 10,000 names rather than the original 2500. The amount of content means each change to the ad requires 15 minutes of rendering.

Hmm, so the ad runs at 11 users per second.

Solution obvious! We either overclock the New York Times, or we lobby the printer industry to break the Adobe monopoly by supporting Firescript (originally called Postzilla, and occasionally still referred to as Lexscape by some marketroids at A Certain Very Big And Very Evil Corporation), the new page description language interpreter that provides for enhanced security, usability, and performance on phototypesetting equipment of all types!

'Rendering' time is such a lame excuse (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11036431)

This amount of time is ludicrous in this day and age. I'm not even trying to troll but I sure suspect they are using a mac or linux for their design needs. I highly doubt the entire print ad is being 'rendered' out of a 3d app. I think you are using the term rendered way too liberally. I think the correct term is pig-slow machine coupled with crap software. Get a box with 3 gig of ram and dual xeon hyperthreading cpus with a meg of cache each. Then tell me it takes 15 minutes. And yes, I am a professionally-employed graphic artist so I know what I'm talking about.

Re:'Rendering' time is such a lame excuse (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11036469)

Considering it's a non-profit group, maybe they don't have the money for a $5,000 machine? If you have the money and talent, why don't you volunteer?

Oh that Luthor! : ) (1)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036567)

occasionally still referred to as Lexscape by some marketroids at A Certain Very Big And Very Evil Corporation

Lexcorp?

Power of the masses (1, Flamebait)

liangzai (837960) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036388)

10,000 flies can't be wrong -- eat shit.

That said, Firefox isn't shit, but the most reasonably standards compliant, light weight, cross platform web browser ever made. I wish them all the luck in the world, and sincerely hope they become the new standard to which -all- web developers adhere. I hope it means the end to any regard what so ever to that other worthless browser.

Re:Power of the masses (4, Insightful)

WIAKywbfatw (307557) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036461)

Two points, both of which will no doubt get me flamed to hell and back:

1. If 10,000 flies can't be wrong, what does that say about the millions that buy Microsoft products? From the viewpoint of the majority of the readers here, aren't those Microsoft customers wrong? Quantity never implies quality, my friend.

2. It might not be open source, but Opera perhaps meets your description of "the most reasonably standards compliant, light weight, cross platform web browser ever made" more than Firefox does. Opera is available for more platforms, is smaller in size (even with a greater feature set that includes an email client, etc), better integrated and more polished.

Yes, there are some very, very minor incompatibility issues but the Opera development team has always done a good job of ironing out any wrinkles that do appear. And, as you've alluded to yourself, there's no such thing as problem-free browsing (at least on any non-Microsoft browser) nowadays.

Other than that, well done to everyone who's contributed to the development of Firefox, no matter how great or small their contribution.

Majority rule (0)

RealAlaskan (576404) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036520)

10,000 flies can't be wrong -- eat shit.

10^6 wolves can't be wrong -- eat moose.

100*10^6 Microsoft customers can't be wrong -- eat shit.

8*10^9 people in graveyards can't be wrong -- drop dead.

If I'm going to go with the majority, I'll go with the wolves.

Re:Majority rule (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11036587)

You forgot to factor the majority not born yet, do the math.

My guess is you need to reduce the count by a bit (1)

BoomerSooner (308737) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036649)

I've downloaded Firefox 1.0 for these machines>
2 Co-lo server 1 & 2
2 Personal Computer (Dual boot Linux & Windows)
1 Old games box (pre Direct X 8)
1 Laptop
1 G4 Tower
1 iBook G3
1 Wife's Computer

9 just by me. Maybe reduce it by a factor of 10 to be close to a true estimate of users using Firefox. It bugs on my Mac though since the middle click on my mouse (yes I use a 3 button mouse) doesn't open tabs but it will in Safari? Strange. Safari needs to add a block-popup allowed filter like Mozilla/Firefox too.

New distributed computing project (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11036390)

Rendering the Firefox New York Times ad.

Expect NYT sales to surge... (5, Interesting)

GillBates0 (664202) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036393)

on that day by atleast a few thousand. Yet another instance of open source promoting business.

Re:Expect NYT sales to surge... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11036553)

Isn't the NYT sold at a loss? I don't think that you correctly analysed the economic consequence of a bunch of nerds just buying the NYT, cuting out the Firefox ad and trashing the rest.

Re:Expect NYT sales to surge... (3, Informative)

Nonesuch (90847) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036656)

Isn't the NYT sold at a loss? I don't think that you correctly analysed the economic consequence of a bunch of nerds just buying the NYT, cuting out the Firefox ad and trashing the rest.
It's a newspaper, not an X-box. The NYT isn't going to print any extra copies on "Firefox day", any unsold copies of any day's edition are themselves a loss, sent back to the distrbutor to be recycled into cat litter [yesterdaysnews.com] .

Generally the wholesale price of a newspaper just barely covers the cost of paper, ink, and distribution. Advertisers (like the firefox project) cover the costs of content and infrastructure -- newsgathering, layout, printing plants, plus a healthy profit margin for the publisher.

I wonder... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11036398)

...Will this do any good? Seriously, will some AOL user be sitting, reading the times, see the ad and go "An ad for 'FireFox'? 'Better Browser'? I better switch!" Probably not. After all, AOL already gives them a "better internet." Damned AOL ads.

Re:I wonder... (2, Interesting)

lilmouse (310335) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036509)

<incenced response>You fool! It's not supposed to be a religious tablet!</incenced response>

Seriously, it's supposed to be like all advertising - getting the name out so that people are aware of it. People like the neighbors of a friend of mine, whose computer is soooooo slow because of adware, but didn't know there was an alternative to IE. If they see an ad like this, then a year from now, they might mention it to a friend "Oh, yeah, there's an alternative to IE....fire...something..." and the friend might find it. But the name is out there, and it will spread. Slowly, but it will spread. (Until it reaches critical mass, after which it will really take off!)

--LWM

I THOUGHT LINUX WAS FREE (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11036406)

Firefox is selling out.

What's next, $100 blowjobs from the BSD demon?

Re:I THOUGHT LINUX WAS FREE (0, Offtopic)

billimad (629204) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036662)

and your point is? [plus613.com]

Why now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11036417)

Just out of interest, why are the running it just before Christmas?

It's not like they are going to hit the Christmas rush in browser downloads when families get PCs for their kids.

Surely it would be better to do it late in January?

10,000 names?? (3, Interesting)

bazmail (764941) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036418)

will there be any room left for branding and/or blurb?

"non-profit" (2, Insightful)

kennycoder (788223) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036423)

They might be non profit company making free software but they are threatening other companies' buisness model. Time will tell...

Re:"non-profit" (1)

bazmail (764941) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036482)

Yeah i feel sorry for all those companies with their bulging patent portfolios.

Re:"non-profit" (1)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036643)

bulging patent portfolios

Damn, that makes me all hot and flustered just thinking about it!

I can't believe it's actually going to happen. (1)

Mr. KFM (831089) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036442)

Just goes to show that thousands of people can't be that wrong.

Re:I can't believe it's actually going to happen. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11036576)

Just goes to show that thousands of people can't be that wrong.

Hmmm, thousands of people can't be that wrong, but 55 Million can [electoral-vote.com] be wrong? How can that be?

Which package should I use? (0, Redundant)

fatron (645513) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036452)

I currently am using the Mozilla 1.7 package, but it looks to me like they may be trying to push everyone towards firefox and thunderbird. I sort of like having everything combined in one package, but don't want to get left behind. It seems that firefox and mozilla are getting far enough apart that even some of the extensions don't work for both anymore. Can anyone convince me to switch?

Re:Which package should I use? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11036473)

No. Next question.

Re:Which package should I use? (1)

Mifflesticks (473216) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036485)

The next version of the mozilla package will be based upon Firefox and Thunderbird. Thus, you'll get them all at once in the future.

Re:Which package should I use? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11036603)

link plz?

Re:Which package should I use? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11036517)

I've used Mozilla 1.6 and 1.7 for quite some time at home, and I started using Firefox at work. It didn't took me long to install FF at home to. I like the "Tabs open in background" better, and the fact that it has mid mouse press scrolling (there is a extention for Moz that does the same, but buildin is more usefull IMHO)

As for the mail part, I can't tell yet, still using Moz 1.7 mail for that :) planning to install TB, but didn't do that yet.

They should buy popops. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11036455)

They should buys some popups advertising for the popup-blocker

Timing (5, Interesting)

telstar (236404) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036465)

I'm curious about the timing of the ad. The last two weeks of the year are when most corporate executives take vacations ... meaning they may not keep up with news in the Times ... meaning if the goal is to convince these guys to use Firefox in their corporations, they may miss the target market entirely. I suppose you could make the case that these same guys now have more time to sit on a beach and read the Times, but has any thought been put into the timing of this thing?

Re:Timing (1)

Rude Turnip (49495) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036677)

Trust me, it's more like the end of August. In December, everyone is in a crunch to meet their numbers by the end of the year.

Exposure (5, Interesting)

zerosignal (222614) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036474)

I wonder if the amount of press coverage they've had about the ad will give them more exposure than the ad itself.

I can already see how this will turn out (4, Interesting)

suso (153703) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036484)

10,000 names on a page are so many that practically none of them will be readable and it will create confusion by people reading the add wondering why there is soo much background in a full page add.

Resolution? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11036494)

If they try to get 10.000(!) names on such an area, what resolution will they have to use so that the names are still readable?

What about my Mozilla FireBush? (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11036515)

Do they really have to stick with Firefox? With a name like FireBush, I'm sure the NYT will give them the generous non-profit discount. It's even a biblical reference!!!

15 minutes? (3, Informative)

boodaman (791877) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036551)

My company does pre-press work for marketing campaigns. If they need 15 minutes to render a postscript file (or PDF) they need better hardware. We use off-the-shelf gear (PC and Mac, none of it SMP) and nothing we do that is full-page size takes 15 minutes, even at 300 dpi.

What're they using, a PII-400???

Re:15 minutes? (1)

Anonymous Custard (587661) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036606)

Have you ever put 10,000 names on a page? Consider names are on average 15 characters long.

Is an explanation in the summary too much to ask? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11036555)

What "names" are they talking about? And a 15 minute ad?! Are they fucking insane?

Re:Is an explanation in the summary too much to as (5, Funny)

halivar (535827) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036655)

What "names" are they talking about? And a 15 minute ad?! Are they fucking insane?

The Magic Clue-Ball(tm) tells me the New York Times is a newspaper, not a TV station. That means no moving video. Some things should be spelled out. Others belong to that category I like to call "general knowledge everyone but you seems to know".

name branding? (5, Insightful)

OffTheLip (636691) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036558)

My experience with firefox has been if I tell someone to use it they do, most of the time without questioning why. Not a hint of concern about 'publicized' IE security flaws of Microsoft failings. Seems most users just want to surf the net, take care of business or whatever. I guess this can still be claimed as a victory for firefox...

Local Web Site Ads (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11036585)

How many of the New York Times readers will even know what a browser is?

I think web site promotions will at least be targeting a better audience. In Massachusetts a couple local sites have now started doing so:

Here's an article [spreadfirefox.com] discussing it further.

i don't get this. (5, Interesting)

jimmyp9999 (813454) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036596)

I don't understand why Firefox is blowing 50K to put an ad in the NYT. A single ad is not going to cause anyone to adopt the browser - it is well known that ads take a lot of impressions to get someone to get action on it.

As a "thank you" to the community it is pretty weak as well. It thanks only the NYT bottom line.

A well-hyped $50K 1.0 launch party would be a better way to generate press and motivate people to switch to the browser. It would get far wider coverage than a single page in one edition of the NYT.

Can't see the ad (0, Flamebait)

theendlessnow (516149) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036612)

I wasn't able to see the ad in Firefox. Only with MSIE. Just another reason why MSIE is superior!

Man just run it already (3, Interesting)

jayhawk88 (160512) | more than 9 years ago | (#11036651)

...and go with a "And Many, Many Others" tag at the end of the listing or something like that.

If they're the kind of people giving money to an open source browser project, I doubt they're going to raise much of a fuss if their name doesn't get specifically mentioned.

waste of money (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11036652)

Yup this is a huge waste of money....there are only like 1 million subscribers...a better deal would be to go with yahoo or google.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...