Inquirer Blasts Mozilla for Microsoft-Style Bashing 213
DoubleWhopper writes "An article over at The Inquirer blasts Mozilla and "lead Firefox engineer" Ben Goodger for resorting to Microsoft-style bashing of Netscape for their recent flawed release. After posting excerpts if scathing comments from readers of Goodger's own blog, the author comments, "I wonder why should companies contribute or fund the Mozilla Foundation, if any derivative work or redistribution of the Foundation's browsers they create is going to raise the FUD mocking and anger of Mozilla's 'lead engineer'". This after Christopher Aillon's (of RedHat) reaction last week."
Bwuah? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not FUD when it's true.
Re:Bwuah? (Score:5, Funny)
There's another name for it when it's false. It's called Marketing^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hlying.
Re:Bwuah? (Score:2)
Man!
i wish ppeps wud talk gud inglesh
Re:Bwuah? (Score:3, Informative)
Old UNIX shell thing.
Re:Bwuah? (Score:5, Informative)
If you work on such a terminal and accidently type the backspace key, all you get is a series of ^H , instead of actual text being deleted.
The /. commnets with ^H in them are a elite way of showing two ways of putting things, The first word being not so politically correct followed by ^H and the PC version of the same.
Man I have too much time on my hand...btw to get the backspace key to do what it should do "stty erase "
Re:Bwuah? (Score:2)
Re:Bwuah? (Score:3, Informative)
Very old terminals did the echo themselves sometimes. Typing the backspace key actually deleted the character in front of the cursor. Nevertheless, the mail program (mailx mostly) read a backspace char (0x08). When this char was sent to the recipient (because BS was not the stty erase character, as you explained), it was often represented at the sender side as ^H. It could also be that it did a backspace; this depended on the MUA and the terminal settings.
So, there we
Re:Bwuah? (Score:5, Insightful)
See, this is one of the perils of individual/employee empowerment through blogs: yes, they give you a unique voice (and I do enjoy most blogs at Mozillazine, especially Dave Hyatt's), but, like it or not, there is a point at which what is written in a blog can cross the line, and become detrimental to the company or organization for which the person in question works.
Re:Bwuah? (Score:2)
Re:Bwuah? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Bwuah? (Score:2)
You would think this is true, so did I until my previous hosting company filed a lawsuit against me for "defaming their company" after I went online and posted my expierences with them. Luckly the company I work for let their lawyer handle the situation.
Right != smart. (Score:5, Insightful)
Something can be legal and moral and STUPID. Stating a truth isn't always smart or even necessary. For example, I don't go up to handicapped people and say "Pardon me, but you have no legs." Mainly because it accomplishes nothing.
When one feels compelled to make criticisms about something, one might question what the motivation is. Self-aggrandizement generally isn't be best one. In this case, no one using Firefox or Mozilla did so after seriously questioning Netscape. Netscape mainly sucks. Anyone reading his article would almost certainly 1) know this, and 2) agree. So what did he accomplish? No one was educated. No one was swayed. Not only that, his comments have been revealed as rather disingenious, being that the bugs are Firefox/Mozilla's to begin with.
Bottom line, he made himself look like a complete ass without accomplishing anything. Yes, as we all know and you really don't need to remind us, the 1st amendment protects his rights, but doesn't protect him from being an ass.
Re:Right != smart. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, and also because the overwhelming majority of handicapped people have legs (you insensitive clod).
However, none of the leggy blind slashdotters will be able to defend themselves to you, thanks to this new craptcha thing.
Re:Right != smart. (Score:5, Insightful)
However, the parents point was more a long the lines of: "If it sucks, we're going to tell you, so maybe you'll do something about it".
Whether he looks like a complete ass, or if he accomplished anything is up to debate. For instance, I bet the netscape development team is taking a long hard look at their next release now.
Re:Right != smart. (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, I don't want to be too nasty about this, but I have noticed that Asa [mozillazine.org] From the Mozilla Foundation seems to be "preaching [mozillazine.org] to the [mozillazine.org] choir [mozillazine.org] about how Firefox is leading the way and that others are just following, and always implying that you shouldn't accept anything less, and Firefox always leads the way, etc.
I wish some of the Mozilla people would stop trash talking other browsers, and focus on their own browser instead. You can talk about how excellent your product is without putting the rest down.
The Inq article is a bit over the top in one way, but there are some good points, and this kind of attitude is incredibly damaging. I hope various Mozilla representatives will be more careful in the future.
Re:Bwuah? (Score:4, Insightful)
Personally I would not call Netscape a competitor. Netscape is more like a partner. Criticising their product is also criticising your own product.
It was the old netscape code that started the Mozilla foundation. Even if Netscape is no longer funding the Mozilla foundation it is still helping out by promoting their derivative work. By getting more Mozilla/Firefox based browsers out to the public more and more websites and web developers will be forced used more standards compliant coding. This will cause IE to lose its stranglehold and allow open-source browsers to level the playing field.
Re:Bwuah? (Score:2)
Re:Bwuah? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Bwuah? (Score:3, Insightful)
If s
Re:Bwuah? (Score:5, Insightful)
There's one important fact that Mr. Goodger forgets... less than 24 hours after the initial Netscape v8.0 was posted, AOL made available version 8.01 which is based in Firefox 1.04 and hence fixes the three vulnerabilities present in Firefox 1.03. In fact, when I clicked the "download Netscape 8.0" link on early Friday in order to test it and write my review, I already got the fixed version 8.01. That does speak quite well of AOL's reaction time after the initial mishap of shipping their browser based on Firefox 1.03. Now that might qualify as FUD - but at any rate, it is a very close to it. Goodger presents his view in such a way that one gets the impression that only Mozilla Foundation can guarantee the security of (gecko based) browsers. True or not? Well, it is true, but this is not the result of these competitors being lazy or slow, it is partly the result of the lack of cooperation and coordination on the part of the Project. Yeah, I read all the apologies in the previous ./ thread - and I don't agree with them. It seems to me that some think that you can't be both a fan and critical of Mozilla Found. I think you can ... in fact, if you really are a fan, then it is prudent to criticize if you feel your fav. project is heading in the wrong direction.
And it does ... take a step back and read the Inq. article - is it really unreasonable? I think it makes a lot of sense, especially if you read the paragraphs below the ones I quoted, and see where such arrogance might lead. (Yeah, arrogance the same arrogance you could see in their response to the apple/khtml "issue").
Re:Bwuah? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Bwuah? (Score:2)
Re:Bwuah? (Score:2)
Re:Bwuah? (Score:5, Insightful)
He didn't "forget" because it hadn't happened yet! The point is not that AOL took "less than 24 hours" to fix vulnerabilities. They released a product with vulnerabilities that had been known about for over a week, that's the problem. If AOL had known that they would be releasing 8.0.1 why didn't they just delay the release a day?
Frankly, I wonder if they would have released 8.0.1 so quickly if it hadn't been for the bad publicity .
Re:Bwuah? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bwuah? (Score:3, Insightful)
Your analogy, simply is inane.
Netscape is based on Mozilla code. The base Mozilla code had a vuln. in it. It had been fixed for some time. Netscape development, at worst, knew of the problem and ignored it. At best, they didn't know - which simply says little about the dev team for Netscape.
I presume that Mozilla didn't know of the vulns in 1.03 until they were found, at which point they fixed them and released 1.04.
It would be more like you making a ki
Re:Bwuah? (Score:5, Insightful)
Would there have been a fixed version 8.01 so quickly if Goodger and co. hadn't blown the whistle?
It's not like Firefox 1.04 wasn't released before Netscape 8 -- and the exploit that 1.04 resolved had been known for at least a week before that. AOL made the choice to launch with a product based on a version of Firefox they knew to be exploitable. Why not hold it until they could get it on the 1.04 level -- especially when the work can be done in a day?
Someone at AOL had to have been presented with the fact that their browser was based on an exploitable version of Firefox -- and that person decided that hitting the ship date was more important than shipping a secure product. Had that decision not been called into the media spotlight, would there have been any particular rush to get that 8.01 patch out? What in AOL/Netscape's storied history of bungled releases makes you think so?
Re:Bwuah? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Bwuah? (Score:5, Insightful)
If security is such a concern, how come I keep clicking the "Check Now" button for updates on my Firefox 1.03 install, and that still hasn't told me about 1.04?
Want to know why? Apparently because those idiots at Mozilla have blocked old Firefoxes from accessing updates.mozilla.org. Unfortunately the effect of that is that they can't find the Firefox update either. This does not imply to me that Firefox is more trustworthy than Netscape.
Re:Bwuah? (Score:3, Informative)
Doublecheck your internet connection settings.
Inq - out of context again (Score:5, Insightful)
Ben was likely annoyed about Netscape.com's alert about Firefox 1.0.4 being out of date. The alert told users to install 8.0 which was based on Firefox 1.0.3 which had securtiy issues.
Netcape.com has resolved the issue of telling Firefox users to update their browser.
Asa's post about the alert with screen shot.
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/asa/archives/00817
Re:Bwuah? (Score:2)
If a man saves two from a burning building it could be twisted to "Man breaks into house and abducts ocupants"
The Inquirer (Score:4, Insightful)
As if the Inquirer hasn't done any blasting themselves?
As if the Inquirier is a reputable media source. How many time have they been sued?
Re:The Inquirer (Score:2)
See the difference between the Inquirer and Ben Goodger is that the former is a tabloid. They're supposed to do things like this.
Ben Goodger is not supposed to flame indirect supporters of the Mozilla Foundation. He's supposed to be encouraging it. His comments that you can get only the best Firefox releases from Mozilla.org itself, while quite possibly true, reeks of vendor lock-in, in a sense.
Re:The Inquirer (Score:3, Insightful)
None (Score:5, Insightful)
Then again, what does suits have to do with anything? Does getting sued make a company bad? That would mean car companies must be evil because they get sued all the time, same with IBM. Now, the flip side of that arguement is that people suing must be right and viruous, so that would make SCO a champion of the truth, eh?
-Charlie
Re:Inquirer v. Enquirer (Score:2)
The tabloid, spelled with an E, and prefaced with the word 'National', unless you mean the one from Philladelphia, has been sued a lot, and I think sucessfully a few times.
As for humor, what is this concept you speak of?
-Charlie
Re:The Inquirer (Score:2)
Re:The Inquirer (Score:2)
The Inq is right and thats the bottom line. It makes me think twice about using Firefox in the future...
And as far as a reputable media source... Yaknow, everyone with no clue says this. EVERYONE. The bottom line is that the inq largely posts only real news and when they do post their predictions and rumors....99% of the time they come true... So not only are they a good media source, they're almost prophetic in content....not to mention their wit
Somebody call a whaaambulance. (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps if he'd known Netscape was going to put out a new browser, he'd have refrained from making those comments. But he probably didn't. Anyway, he was still correct (by a day)
Security is more important then people's feelings.
Re:Somebody call a whaaambulance. (Score:3, Informative)
No, actually, in this case, he was wrong (by about a week). Somebody who downloaded Netscape 8.0 when it was released, then updated to 8.1 when it was released, would have a day of unpatched vulnerability.
Somebody who downloaded Firefox 1.0.3 on the day the latest exploit was revealed, then updated to 1.0.4 the day it was released, would have at least a week of vulnerability.
Re:Somebody call a whaaambulance. (Score:2)
Really, Netscape had no business launching 8.0, and should have waited a day to get the 1.0.4 fixes in. Known exploits with a known solution should be showstoppers - period.
Can we start linking the original articles? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Can we start linking the original articles? (Score:2, Funny)
Is that what people keep posting about?!?
Re:Can we start linking the original articles? (Score:2)
But if they'd linked to Chris Ailon's blog, people might have noticed this update:
Update 20050522 19:25:24 -0500: the slashdot article is misleading. [aillon.org]
That links to a blog post where he rebuts the slashdot article that supposedly represents his views. ^_^
rational people know (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:rational people know (Score:2)
Re:rational people know (Score:2)
Ever read any Robert E. Howard? His views on race seem to have been pretty similar to Hitler's, yet the Conan tales are still awfully good yarns.
What Ben Goodger said... (Score:5, Informative)
If security is important to you, this demonstration should show that browsers that are redistributions of the official Mozilla releases are never going to give you security updates as quickly as Mozilla will itself for its supported products.
Now, if it is true that Netscape is a "redistribution" of Firefox (Netscape says it is), its only fair to comment that if FF is updated, it will be some time before Netscape is. I wouldn't call it Microsoft-style bashing.
Re:What Ben Goodger said... (Score:2)
Branch vs trunk (Score:2)
And why he may one day eat those words... (Score:2)
Unless, of course, the team developing the derivative find the security flaw (or get the notification from someone who did) first, and can fix it locally faster than the patching process can get it into a new official Moz/FF release.
This could cut both ways, and
Title (Score:2)
They have a point... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:They have a point... (Score:2)
Re:They have a point... (Score:3, Interesting)
The Inquirer? (Score:5, Funny)
Oh, wait, wrong tabloid...
Re:The Inquirer? (Score:2)
Talk about sensationlist headlines... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Talk about sensationlist headlines... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Talk about sensationlist headlines... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, the last thing the open source 'community' needs is a borg-like avoidance of conflict. Conflict is *good*; it spurs change, reveals flaws, and pushes people to either put up or shut up.
People who clamor for an end to conflict with the tired 'let's just all get along' line are, in fact, poison to any endeavor which wants to remain vibrant and strong. It's unfortunate that anyone pays any attention at all to these losers, whose only real goal is to shut down any and all opposition to their own pet views of How The World Should Be(TM).
No, let's NOT just all get along. Let's argue, fight, criticize, disagree and struggle whenever we feel that it's appropriate to do so. And if anyone comes along and whines about this state of affairs, let's bitch-slap the wannabe tin-potters into next week without so much as giving them the time of day.
Max
Re:Internal/External Conflicts (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Talk about sensationlist headlines... (Score:2)
Extremely unlikely. Last I knew, they were still trying to get all the individual contributors to allow GPL and LGPL licensing to go along with the MPL. Unlike projects like OpenOffice.org, Mozilla traditionally did not require any form of joint copyright assignment, so Mozilla itself can't relicense the code, only the individual developers can.
The Register's headline was sensationalistic and misleading. But, that's their st
Totally Justified (Score:5, Insightful)
It can create a bad impression on Mozilla applications if other apps that proudly boast that they're based on such apps don't release updates in a timely manner.
On another note, it's quite possible that Netscape are breaking the Mozilla trademark guidelines [ebrahim.org]. The application should have said something like based on Gecko rather than based on Firefox because after all the Netscape bloat adding it looks nothing like Firefox.
Still nothing is as innovative as IE [msdn.com]
Re:Totally Justified (Score:4, Insightful)
The irony is, that this is exactly what the INQ. article is about. Furthermore:
It can create a bad impression on Mozilla applications if other apps that proudly boast that they're based on such apps don't release updates in a timely manner.
Have you read the article actually? It is exactly about the unneded mockery of Goodger, who fails to note that Netscape released an update as fast as humanly possible - less than a day after release. I think that qualifies as "timely manner".
Re:Totally Justified (Score:3, Interesting)
The responsible thing would have been to delay the release by one day. This would also have meant that they didn't force all their early adopters to update so soon.
Yes, it would have been good to see something patched that quickly if the defects had been found after the release, however when the holes are known about then it makes sense to delay the release particularly if it's only by
Re:Totally Justified (Score:2)
I'm not saying I agree or disagree on the policy, a lot of things I think are a bit too restrictive IMO, but it doesn't bother me because the underlying software is free even if the branding isn't.
Re:Totally Justified (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah, it took them a day to bring out the 8.01 update. That's just not quick enough!
Re:Totally Justified (Score:2)
He said that redistrbutions (like Netscape) will never be as secure as the official Mozilla version.
How many "days at risk" was FF from these issues?
Three days I believe (I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong).
How many "days at risk" was Netscape 8.0 from these issues?
Less than one.
Just saying the arguement COULD be made, thats all.
Re:Totally Justified (Score:2)
Re:Totally Justified (Score:2)
In general his comment about "the official Mozilla release will always be more secure" seems to make sense, but I you have to be careful about absolute statements like that. Perhaps there will be a redistrubtion which will say always wait for a month or two after an offical Mozilla release in hopes of hav
Re:Totally Justified (Score:2)
It's not as cut and dry as that. There is an extensive QA process that companies such as Netscape go through. They probably had builds in testing for a few days before the Firefox vulnerability was announced publically.
Bashful (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Bashful (Score:2, Funny)
Subtle distinction here: bashing that uses truth, and bashing that distorts it.
Honesty is the best policy... (Score:3, Insightful)
A developer says something regrettable? Shocking! (Score:2)
This is a tempest in a teapot. Nothing to see here.
Why.... (Score:2)
Nothing to see here, move along... (Score:4, Interesting)
The article goes on to basically "right" Ben's "wrongs" and eventually concludes with an update taht Mozilla Foundation contacted The Inquirer to inform them that Ben Gooder is not a MoFo employee.
And to think, I will never get the time added back on to my life for wasting time reading that article.
FUDged (Score:3, Interesting)
At the same time the article is itself a FUD and sort of repulsive for the same reasons of the first, only more so because Goodger can at least make a claim to having the users best interests at heart while the Inquirer would pour gasoline on a blazing inferno if it'd sell, in this case taking it to almost epically stupid proportions:
You dumbass. You just quoted all of the people in his freaking blog that thought Goodger's post was crap. Read your own stupid story.
Flamebait (Score:2)
Sadly enough, from the summary on
Re:Flamebait (Score:2)
The first time I seen it used was in a blog post that was critical of the running of the Foundation (non 404'd), but it was linked to in Asa's blog [mozillazine.org] and the name just stuck.
Re:Flamebait (Score:2)
Inquirer using firefox [google.com]
I know it's a real abbreviation, but I think it was chosen (for this article) in poor taste.
Yes, it is, and here's why. (Score:2)
I would never get tired of saying in a meeting "we need to get that mofo distro out!"
I shall spend a good portion of the day coming up with clever ways to say mofo so that there is a double meaning attached. The louder, the better.
update (Score:5, Insightful)
The Mozilla Foundation got in touch with me to let me know that Ben Goodger currently is not an employee of this organization, something I've heard before. [...] It shouldnt be surprising then that due to Goodgers past at the Foundation and his involvement in leading the Firefox browser development, his words are often misinterpreted as representing the project.
When an open-source project grows popular (and therefore its community gains some power) the press will begin to pay some attention and publicizing quotes and statements. Unfortunately, the press usually represents any community as monolithic entity. Often, it's not such a big problem, but here Mozilla is competing with giant corporations and so the press tends to equate the mozilla community with a corporation.
Goodger make a perfectly valid statement which reflects his viewpoint of the Mozilla project. However, Goodger isn't a paid employee of the Mozilla Foundation. He is basically a highly involved community member. If the Register wants to report on his opinions, that's fine, but please don't presume that he is speaking for the community or the Mozilla Foundation.
Netscape v. Firefox (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, if I could only I could convince our IT managers that Netscape is a redistribution of Firefox, I'd be set. Getting yelled at for using Firefox and being told to use Netscape instead makes my head hurt.
Re:Netscape v. Firefox (Score:2)
*sigh*
Whoever replied to me apparently never saw "Gecko" in Netscape's UA string.
Re:Netscape v. Firefox (Score:2)
Nice that they explicitly support Mozilla though. IIRC I tried to use it a while back with Firefox/Firebird/Phoenix/Mozilla (I really cannot remember when) and it blocked it. I ended up using Konq and spoofing the UA.
Re:Netscape v. Firefox (Score:2)
Technically speaking it was the truth indeed. But bashing Netscape as inferior just because it takes a few more hours to put their updates out is really nothing more than spreading FUD. FUD is not only about lies... it is also about making things bigger than they really are.
The real question... (Score:4, Insightful)
Why couldn't they simply wait a day? Instead of commenting back and forth about what the developer said, everyone should have asked that question.
Basically, AOL did something stupid, a developer responded to it, and now this gets taken out of context.
My beef with Netscape (Score:2)
Part of the reason people like Open Source... (Score:2)
FUD? (Score:4, Informative)
If security is important to you, this demonstration should show that browsers that are redistributions of the official Mozilla releases are never going to give you security updates as quickly as Mozilla will itself for its supported products.
The above statement is: True.
From the 10 immutable laws of security [microsoft.com]:
Law #3: If a bad guy has unrestricted physical access to your computer, it's not your computer anymore.
The above statement is: True.
Either of these could be viewed as FUD, because it requires the reader have a level of paranoia or fear. It is whether or not someone chooses to believe them that makes the FUD different.
IMHO, this shouldn't even be newsworthy enough for Slashdot to cover. As stated by others, this guy isn't even part of the Mozilla Foundation and this is more an attack on one person's comments than the foundation as a whole.
They make a very good point, Firefox contains the latest code and the latest security updates. AOL and Netscape can use their code, but ultimately, if a user's top priority is security, they should probably be using the browser first to be updated.
The only reason why someone should use Netscape or the AOL browser is if they *have* to, or if those browsers offer some feature that Firefox doesn't currently have.
There's a lot of FUD slung from both commercial and open source developers, I don't see why this term has become *the* definition of "evil" on
Microsoft-style? (Score:2)
Word of the day: blasts (Score:3, Funny)
Netscape??? (Score:2)
Oblig. Monty Python (Score:3, Funny)
We apologize. Those that have been in charge of the blasting the blasted have been blasted.
Re:Yeah (Score:2)
Re:Double standards.kfynzdx (Score:5, Insightful)
I disagree. And this is why people are fleeing traditional news outlets. Where was a time when, when you asked people why they wanted to be journalists, they would recite a line about being interested in the truth. This isn't the case any more. Now they want to change the world and make a difference.
Investigative journalism used to be about fact-finding and ferreting out the truth from a web lies woven by powerful people. Now it's about furthering an agenda (both the Left and Right are guilty of this, so don't think I'm attacking you and your political offiliation).
The fact that you say here that it's the "job" of the news to bash stuff affirms this in my mind. I don't think the news is about criticism, it's about finding truth (yeah, we can wax philosophical here about the nature and unattainability of truth, just play along) and reporting it. Bias is inevitable, but recently our various media outlets have been found to be deliberately reporting lies or omiting specific truths to further an agenda. You've got the White House hiring reporters to write stories as though they were done by independent journalists. You've got the Department of Defense issuing carbon-copy letters for soldiers to "send home" to their newspapers praising the good work of Iraq. You've got NBC blowing up trucks, CBS issuing reports based on false documents, and dozens of reporters around the country being fired for just flat out manufacturing stories, quotes, and events.
These crimes of journalism are committed by people who want to change the world, not discover and report truth. Whenever somebody says they want to "change the world" or "improve the human condition", you can bet that it's codespeak for "recreate society based on my idea of what a sociey should be." And we have a word for such authoritarian views of what people should want and be: fascism.
Re:Double standards.kfynzdx (Score:2)
Re:Double standards.kfynzdx (Score:2)
Criticism is not, by nature, mutually exclusive with truth. Nor is journalism mutually exclusive with providing criticism.
However, in the modern American media, deliberate obfuscation and masking of truth is being done to support the criticism that wouldn't stand on its own if people knew the truth.
It's not necessary that criticism eschew fact, it's just happening now because journalists no longer want to pursue truth (perhaps in the