Firefox Lead Now Working For Google 457
zmarties writes "In a very
low key announcement on his blog, Ben Goodger, lead developer for
Firefox, has announce that effective from a couple of weeks ago, he has become a Google employee. In practice his day to day job won't change that much, in that he will still lead Firefox through its forthcoming releases, but with Google paying his wages, we can be sure that new and interesting overlap between the Mozilla Foundation's browsers and Google's services are sure to develop."
I'm... (Score:4, Insightful)
I trust both companies...but have learned that in computer technology, trust can only be trusted so far...
Corruption of FireFox Development? (Score:1, Insightful)
Will Google now become the default search engine on FireFox? So, if you enter a faulty URL, then suddenly, the Google web page appears and presents you with alternative Web links?
I prefer that the development team at FireFox be agnostic. Perhaps, now is the time to switch to Gecko. I hear that it is faster and has a tighter interface with Windows. I sure could use the speed for all my visits to picture-laden porn sites.
Re:So.. (Score:5, Insightful)
So the more FireFox users there are, the more Google users there are. I don't see anything mysterious about this move by Google. It's really in their financial interest, and not just because of the PR.
Re:All this google good news (Score:5, Insightful)
Since Google is first and foremost an Advertisement company, the news which will primarily drive their stock price will revolve around advertisement rates and demand, as well as the customary profit margins, revenues and such.
What a great way to influence a project (Score:2, Insightful)
What a great way to influence a project: pay for it.
Google will really be able to get any pet idea that they have at least brought up as a part of the project.
This is a very cheap way of touching millions of people. A smart, patient and friendly company should be able to find ways to get their agenda helped, even when their employee is generally remaining "independant".
And free advertising: BGoodger@google.com at the bottom of every communication? Though I suppose it'll be something more like BGoodger@gmail.com
This should be happening much more than it does.
Re:Google Toolbar for Firefox (Score:3, Insightful)
It has a search portion, that is fully customizable to other searchs, plus the capability to create your own custom keywords to use in the toolbar instead. (like the built in dict "word" for definition, you can use any keywords for search items, if you choose not to use the search toolbar)
Re:What if it were Microsoft? (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't worry. There is a healthy skepticism of all corporations here, not just MS.
Re:Google Toolbar for Firefox (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm somewhat shocked that someone would say this. I have to admit, I can't help but wonder if I'm being trolled on this. But I'll apply Occam's Razor [wikipedia.org] and assume ignorance over malicious intent.
Firefox has Googlebar [mozdev.org] and has had it for some time [mozdev.org]. Now, some have claimed Googlebar doesn't count since it lacks PageRank. Enter PRGooglebar [prgooglebar.org].
Re:This is bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Even allowing that Google may have a monetary incentive to hire a chief Mozilla developer, I don't see what the problem is. At this point, Google needs an alternative browser to keep Microsoft in check. Supporters of Free Software also desire that IE marketshare should drop, and that more open alternatives (such as FireFox) should take the slack. The interests of a "selfish" corporation and Free Software hippies are aligned.
There's no guarantee that Google won't turn "evil" in the future. But let's judge them on things they have done, rather than what they might do.
Please note that I am not totally pro-Google. I have issues with their acquiescence to censorship of totalitarian regimes. But this action doesn't bother me, and I don't see why it should.
Re:This is bad (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What if it were Microsoft? (Score:5, Insightful)
How would people react if Microsoft were the company in question? They'd be far more hostile. Is this inconsistent or hypocritical? Not in the least.
Microsoft are fundamentally hostile to the Web. They are fundamentally hostile to standards. They are fundamentally hostile to cross-platform applications. They are fundamentally hostile to Free Software.
None of these observations applies to Google. So what was your point again?
Re:What if it were Microsoft? (Score:3, Insightful)
For one, Google doesn't compete against firefox, Microsoft does. That alone justifies every conspiracy loony response.
Second, lets not forget that Microsoft was convicted for illegally maintaining its monopoly.
Third, Microsoft has a track record for playing dirty, being untrustworthy and valuing unethical behavior.
Re:What if it were Microsoft? (Score:1, Insightful)
Google, on the other hand, has a track record of developing innovative and intelligently executed projects. I'm sure Google has some sort of motive in hiring the lead developer of Firefox, and I think I can safely say that whatever is brewing is going to be cool.
This is bad-For my argument. (Score:1, Insightful)
They don't have a monopoly on the search market.
"forming links with good technology and talent"
IBM
"then manipulating it for their own selfish needs."
GPL.
"Trust me Google are the new evil."
Trust me. You haven't the foggiest what true evil is.
They just hired a guy, not the Mozilla foundation (Score:2, Insightful)
Presumably, Ben's work on Firefox will be happening in his personal time, and won't have much to do with Google. I would guess they hired him because he's now got a great track record and clearly developed skills in UI design and implementation.
Re:What if it were Microsoft? (Score:4, Insightful)
Google and Microsoft are different companies, with different management teams that have different views of how thier companies should be run. It is right and proper that we should treat them differently.
Re:I was just thinking... (Score:1, Insightful)
I do want to see Google and Mozilla working together to make each other stronger (and, frankly, to oppose Microsoft's browser dominance), but we simply don't know yet what Google has in mind.
Re:All this google good news (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:This is bad (Score:4, Insightful)
Trust me Google are the new evil.
Really? Which proprietary formats are they attempting to lock people in to at the expense of open and freely-exchangable standards? Which competitors are they attempting to destroy through anti-competitive contract chicanery which keeps them from getting a toe-hold in the market? What long winded EULAs are they using to deny fundamental consumer rights like resale to the consumers who purchase their products? What DRM platforms are the pushing with the ill-concealed intention of locking all competitors out of the x86 hardware platform? What annoying validation systems are they integrating that limit the purchaser to a certain number of hardware upgrades before they get locked out of their own software?
I'm waiting.
This is a good thing (Score:5, Insightful)
And honestly, if the project starts to suck, either Goodger will leave Google and find another sponsor, or the project will fork, and Google's version won't be the one known as Firefox. That would be bad for Google, and render the whole exercise pointless.
It may be a "conflict of interest," but that doesn't mean it will be bad. Google is an arrogant corporation (not in a bad way), and they think that with a level playing field, they will kick the a** of MS and everybody else. They want Firefox to level the playing field so they can win. The worst possible outcome would be for Firefox to become Google-optimized at the expense of how it works on thee rest of the web; that will hurt Firefox & Google.
Don't worry who's paying the bills; worry about the code he generates, and be happy that he's being paid to work on Firefox, which simply ensures that he'll continue to work on it.
Re:This is bad (Score:3, Insightful)
If they ensure one full time programmer on firefox, thats a good thing for firefox, which is a good thing for google.
Its kind of like why all those big companies are interested in linux - lessens their reliance on microsoft, its one of those rare "everybody wins" situation (no i dont count the pyramid schemes as an "everybody wins" situation)
Re:This is bad (Score:4, Insightful)
Freeing up resources at the Mozilla Foundation (Score:4, Insightful)
This is only good news.
So what? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How can Google get more integrated? (Score:3, Insightful)
Besides, Google needs to have its basic search keep its simple spare design for easy access from any number of browsers and to maintain the overall simplicity of basic searching.
GMail, on the other hand, has an interface, and it's an interface that coulc benefit from the rich GUI components provided by XUL.
Jedidiah.
Re:Hummm... (Score:1, Insightful)
You use standards every day. Bringing HTML into compliance with basic standards is a no-brainer, and it's inexcusable (IMHO) for a company as large and prominent as Google to ignore them.
I'm sure that other sites like eBay, Microsoft, Ikea, MFI and McDonalds and Yahoo also are inexcusable for not following W3 standards.
Re:This is bad (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:This is bad (Score:4, Insightful)
Conflict of interest (Score:2, Insightful)
I see a possible conflict of interest, here. I think he needs to maintain a rigorous separation between any interests that google may profess and what is good for firefox to maintain it as essentially, an open source project.
Google is for profit, firefox isn't, even though both offer use of their product for free.
I think the legal term might be a "chinese wall" to separate work on one from work on another.
Re:proof in the pudding (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This is bad (Score:2, Insightful)
not very responsible... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hummm... (Score:3, Insightful)
Put down the Dreamweaver and step the hell away from the webdav server.
Do you really believe that, or are you just acting stupid to get a laugh on Slashdot? No, it's not "all good" to write crap code that just manages to parse in most browsers. That's the exact reason why pages don't render uniformly today: IE and Mozilla had to make so many allowances for broken HTML that the rendering of a given piece of non-compliant code is a crapshoot.
That's also why people who complain that Slashdot doesn't "look right" in Mozilla get shouted down. Slashcode's HTML doesn't validate so there's no deterministic answer to what "looks right" means. We're basically in the current situation because so many webmasters put up half-assed code that IE and Mozilla had to accept whatever was thrown at them.
Fortunately, XHTML is very cut-and-dried: either a page is valid, or it's not a page. I look forward to they day when "good enough" isn't, and things really will look like they're supposed to on non-IE browsers.