Google & Firefox's Relationship 392
sebFlyte writes "More news from FOSDEM, this time about the depth of support for Firefox from Google. According to this article on ZDNet, Firefox' growth and Mozilla's staffing costs have been underpinned by the Foundation's tie-ins with Google, but they promise not to go the same way as Netscape by selling 'every bookmark and link'... and don't forget that the lead programmer (among others) is directly in Google's employ."
I'd be (Score:4, Insightful)
Competition is GOOD! (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't break a sweat (Score:5, Insightful)
But I'm sure many people keep it as Google, just because it is a great start page, and loads really quickly.
From TFA, they mentioned how localized builds are a problem... If Google were to host the Start Page in different languages, would the Foundation not be able to set a different language version of the page in their localized builds?
Firefox = thin client (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Google + Firefox (Score:4, Insightful)
The chances are indeed big that Google will one day drop some of its ethics for cash. But the odds taht they'd drop all their ethics are small. And even if they do, it won't be overnight, so the community will have time to form a counterforce and make backups.
Let's wait until they hire Carly... then we know they're evil
Re:Google + Firefox (Score:5, Insightful)
What about IBM? They used to be evil. Now they are helping the open source community and fighting off scum like SCO. They still have their own agenda, but they're not evil like it used to be.
Re:gBrowser on the way (Score:5, Insightful)
Brand recognition is key, and Firefox is certainly better known than gBrowser.
Look at the blank expression on peoples faces when you say "do you have gmail?"
Most regular users have to be told "its googles email service, yes its like hotmail, only better..."
Firefox is firefox in my eyes
Re:Competition is GOOD! (Score:5, Insightful)
If they build one that's good enough, and whose security model is comparable to Firefox's or Opera's, Alternate browsers will be marginalized again, W3C standards or no W3C standards.
Re:I'd be (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry.
Re:If google support FF... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Google + Firefox (Score:5, Insightful)
If you think the corporate focus on the bottom line is a problem for society, let's talk about that. (And don't think for a second that when IBM and Google support OSS that they don't have the bottom line in mind. They're hedging their bets against other corps like MS.) Until we address the issue of "more money equals better", we can't complain that corporations behave like corporations.
Maybe when we focus our mental energy on redefining what businesses' responsibilities to the world are, and the evil you speak of can be held in check.
Re:I'd be (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know if Microsoft was ever really thought of as a respected company. But I think they definately represent what Google has the potential to become, only more so. I mean think of all the data that passes through Google every day. I for one hope they remain moral and ethical and don't decide to sell out.
Also on the integration, I think it can be a good thing. I love my google toolbar in the upper right corner and I love most of the extra services that google is providing besides searching. It will be interesting to see if they integrate them in a non-obtrusive manner.
javascript (Score:2, Insightful)
Note to Mozilla developers: Stop sitting there with your arms crossed insisting on a strict standards compliance! Build it, but don't force everyone to write tons of extra code because an innovative language feature that IE includes is not presently part of the standard!
Firefox has been better on this front, but there is still room for improvement.
Re:Google + Firefox (Score:1, Insightful)
Why worry? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:+1 Insightful?! (Score:2, Insightful)
Actually, you can have tabbed browsing on console as well. Check out elinks if you doubt me
apt-get install elinks, and you are done!
Re:javascript (Score:1, Insightful)
There's a good reason the Mozilla developers decided to release an implementation of Javascript that is standards compliant and not compatible with 80% of Javascript code on the web [statistic from OP],
Note to Mozilla developers: Please insist on a strict standards compliance. Force everyone to write standard code because something that IE/Microsoft made up as an extention to a *standard* language should not be used in the first place!
[troll == anonymous]
Re:javascript (Score:5, Insightful)
You were saying... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not saying you'll do this, but I can't think of a single, self-aware human being that hasn't done some morally or ethically reprehensible thing at one point in his or her history. Can you?
Re:Google + Firefox (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I'd be (Score:4, Insightful)
They already did. They became a publicly traded corporation. As such, they are legally bound to act in the financial best interest of the shareholders. When the time comes that they have choose between the big money and those portions of their morals and ethics that extend beyond the law's requirements, they've already committed to their course.
Re:If google support FF... (Score:3, Insightful)
If Google was to support the use of the 3rd party extension, which would have the same effect as if Google was to develop and market the Toolbar themselves.
Re:I'd be (Score:2, Insightful)
The day may come when they charge a nominal fee for gmail with 10GB of space for instance. I doubt that would kill them but it would probably make them evil in the eyes of some. In fact, many already think gmail is evil just because it shows advertisements based on keywords in ones e-mail messages.
Re:I'd be (Score:5, Insightful)
maximize profits. It is, instead, the responsibility of a public company to
maximize the value of the company (which, in the long run, is better for
shareholders than simply maximizing profits). Good will, happy
customers, and a reputation for practicing enlightened ethics all add value
to a company that management can point to if they ever need to defend their
actions against a shareholder lawsuit.
Such things may not prevent shareholder lawsuits, but they do provide a solid
defense them.
Re:You were saying... (Score:2, Insightful)
"Henry VIII? Well, obviously he would only let people write what he wanted them to write, so we can't know anything about him at all..."
If the authors of the New Testament were his "PR people", they weren't very good at their own PR. A lot of the time, they describe themselves and each other as blind, incompetent buffoons who don't get what Jesus was on about. Not really the marks of some truth-blurring spin job.
Gerv
Re:Details? (Score:3, Insightful)
It may be a very good deal -- it's certainly seems like good business -- but the fact that a Moz feature was adware, no matter how popular, should have been disclosed:
Mozilla has created the expectation that its software serves users' interests, not the financial or business needs of the manufacturer. It's a key point in differentiating the organization and its products.
Many people have contributed to Mozilla.org on that basis; adware changes it. It's disingenuous, I think, to make that change without discussion it with those who've contributed and especially without disclosing it.
It's also disingenous to users: Mozilla.org has given them the same expectation, and in that context Google as the home page looks like a technical choice by Mozilla.org and an independent endorsement of Google. It turns out to be a paid advertisement. It's like an advertisement disguised as news in a newspaper.
It doesn't pass the smell test. Perhaps everyone's expectation is wrong, but then Mozilla.org should clarify it's position.
Re:Details? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not adware. Adware is software which is installed to show you ads. What ads do you see in Firefox that you wouldn't see if we hadn't made the search engine deals? None. If you search using a search engine, you see that search engine's ads - but that's true whether that engine is built in, or the default, or you visit it by typing the URL.
Mozilla has created the expectation that its software serves users' interests, not the financial or business needs of the manufacturer. It's a key point in differentiating the organization and its products.
Absolutely. As I discussed in the talk I gave, there's a very fine balance.
Google as the home page looks like a technical choice by Mozilla.org and an independent endorsement of Google.
Anyone who thinks that wasn't paying too much attention. The home page is co-branded, and hosted on google.com. Obviously it's the result of a collaboration between the two organisations.
Gerv
Re:I'd be (Score:3, Insightful)
Please speak for yourself: (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem with how some people accept religion in their lives is that it blinds them instead of opening their eyes.
I betcha if Jesus was still alive, he'd smack you upside the head to wake you up, just like a zen monk would.
(yes, call me flamebait if you wish, but at least please seriously consider what I am saying)
Re:You were saying... (Score:1, Insightful)
Now, one might claim that the original sources of the New Testament did have direct knowledge of Jesus, but the people who wrote the gospels down were at least one, most likely several, levels further separated from Jesus and I've never heard of any other sources that even claim direct knowledge of Jesus. The closest you get in sources from around Jesus time are highly disputed paragraphs in the work of Josephus.
Jesus is peculiar in that very few "historical figures" that have had such importance through the ages are so poorly documented. Extensive records exist for many people from that time that are now completely forgotten. For many other historical figures for which there are no written records from sources which direct knowledge of the person there are at least second hand accounts or accounts from critics that corroborate parts of the accounts of their followers, or properly credited quotes from earlier works that can be cross referenced from multiple sources, all of which give a significantly greater reason to assume we have proper knowledge of these persons.
This does give a good basis for doubting claims about Jesus, or even doubting his existence as a historical person at all - all knowledge about Jesus is second/third hand knowledge at best, written down by members of a cult that had a significant interest in perpetuating the stories they believed in, that still haven't managed to make the stories internally consistent and in it's early history discarded a large number of even more inconsistent stories
When it comes to Henry VIII on the other hand (or even many people contemporary with Jesus for that matter), there exists significant numbers o contemporary accounts to from sources not immediately affiliated with any movement built around worshipping him.
Re:You were saying... (Score:3, Insightful)
Did you figure that out without reading the Bible?
Understanding his existence is a moot point as long as you understand his message.
His coming to earth is a vital part of his message. Jesus lives a perfect life among us as a human so he was in a position to take the punishment we deserve for our rebellion against God, and enable us to love him again with all our heart. If he didn't actually come, die, and rise from the dead, Christianity is a sham and a waste of time.
The question of whether he existed or not is therefore a vital one, if you are trying to understand his message.
Gerv