Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Mozilla The Internet Businesses Google

Mozilla Reponds - We Call the Shots, Not Google. 222

Posted by Zonk
from the two-great-tastes-fight-it-out dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Recent articles in the New York Times and at CNET have highlighted the growing concern that Google holds significant power and influence over Firefox's development. In an interview published today, Mozilla's technology strategist Mike Shaver did his best to proclaim Mozilla's independence. Yes, Google pays Mozilla $56 million per year, Google is the default search engine, and supplier of many of the browser's features (anti-phishing, anti-malware, incorrect URL resolution). Shaver insists that in spite of these ties, Mozilla still calls the shots over Firefox's development."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mozilla Reponds - We Call the Shots, Not Google.

Comments Filter:
  • by dedazo (737510) on Wednesday November 14, 2007 @04:49PM (#21355217) Journal
    I used to say the same thing when I was a teenager and generally feeling rebellious. Unfortunately my dad had all the money at the time, so for anything that had to do with money he ended up calling the shots.

    I'm not saying this is bad, and frankly I don't buy the "OMG Google will subvert Firefox" or whatever the conspiracy theory du jour is, but when 99% (or close to that) of your income comes from a single place, "I call the shots" comes across a little weak. He might be right in his claim that Mozilla is independent with or without Google's $56 million, but without the $56M Mozilla is a very different company, probably one that cannot support 120 million users or pay developers or CEOs.

    When it comes to money, it's always worse to have it and then lose it than to never have it to begin with.

    • I'm thinking that maybe having someone else control Firefox would be a good thing. I used to really love it but the little bugs here and there are starting to bother me. The Mac version becomes unusable after a couple days and I have to restart it so it will render pages at least semi-properly again. So I've started switching to other programs on the Mac, and I'll probably begin switching my program on Windows too.
    • by toleraen (831634) on Wednesday November 14, 2007 @05:13PM (#21355535)
      Could that money come from another source though? Would Yahoo payout like Google does if they switched the default search engines, homepage, etc to yahoo's servers? Sure the cash is really flowing in, but it seems like other there would be other companies that would pay for that right. Maybe not as much as Google, but they'd pay something at least.
      • by dedazo (737510) on Wednesday November 14, 2007 @05:20PM (#21355627) Journal
        Perhaps Mozilla could give you the option to set the default search engine when you install it. Then Google would pay for Google installations, Yahoo for theirs, Microsoft for theirs, etc. Users win, the search engine company wins, Mozilla wins. More importantly, Mozilla becomes more independent.

        And then maybe Microsoft could rent a clue about that. I for one would love to see Google pay Microsoft for the benefit of being the default search engine in Internet Explorer. People who pick Google as a SE mean no revenue to Microsoft in that sense, anyway. And that would also mean more choice for IE users.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by BootNinja (743040)
          Your suggestion defeats the entire point of google paying for default placement. The purpose of paying to be default search is to get people who ordinarily would use another search engine to use Google instead. If you really want to use Yahoo! instead of Google, then you will change the search bar, but most people will leave it set to Google, thus Google gets x more people looking at their ads. If you take away that automatic default, you are taking away the product that Google is paying for.
        • by Schraegstrichpunkt (931443) on Wednesday November 14, 2007 @09:50PM (#21358723) Homepage

          Perhaps Mozilla could give you the option to set the default search engine when you install it.

          Assuming the Windows of Firefox:

          • you can use the Client Customization Kit [mozilla.org] to build your own custom Firefox installer that ships with your preferred settings;
          • you can edit chrome\en-GB.jar\locale\browser-region\region.properties and replace "Google" with "Yahoo.co.uk" in the "browser.search.defaultenginename" line (localize as necessary);
          • you can delete searchplugins\google.xml, and Firefox will default to the next-highest-priority search engine for your locale (probably Yahoo); and finally
          • you can just click on the search bar and select which search engine you want.

          You're looking for fault in something that works perfectly fine.

      • by asa (33102) <asa@mozilla.com> on Wednesday November 14, 2007 @06:00PM (#21356231) Homepage
        > Could that money come from another source though? Would
        > Yahoo payout like Google does if they switched the default
        > search engines, homepage, etc to yahoo's servers?

        We already do have a financial relationship with Yahoo and they pay Mozilla for the traffic Firefox sends them. It's just not as much because they're used by fewer Firefox users (both because they're not default, and because users prefer Google.)

        > Sure the cash is really flowing in, but it seems like
        > other there would be other companies that would pay for
        > that right. Maybe not as much as Google, but they'd pay
        > something at least.

        Any company, including Microsoft, that depends on traffic would pay to have 130 million users visiting their services regularly. Google is the best right now so we chose them as the default. Yahoo is still a favorite of some people, and so it's included in Firefox as an alternative. Some countries have other popular search services and we include those -- even defaulting to them in some cases, when it makes sense for the users.

        This isn't about money, really. Mozilla could get as much or more money by selling off search or other services to the highest bidder but that's not how we operate. Google is the default because it's the best. If some other search overtakes Google, then that will probably soon be the default.

        - A
        • by toleraen (831634)

          Mozilla could get as much or more money by selling off search or other services to the highest bidder but that's not how we operate. Google is the default because it's the best.
          I think that pretty much puts this entire discussion to rest. Thanks for the response!
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by mrdarreng (1120603)

          Google is the default because it's the best.
          How do you define best? How do you make it a non-subjective? Do you determine they're best because they're the most preferred by users?
          • by jalefkowit (101585) <jasonNO@SPAMjasonlefkowitz.net> on Wednesday November 14, 2007 @09:57PM (#21358769) Homepage

            How do you define best? How do you make it a non-subjective? Do you determine they're best because they're the most preferred by users?

            People forget where Firefox came from. It was not focus grouped (or even planned, really) by Mozilla. At the time, Mozilla was still almost exclusively funded by AOL, and their primary focus was the Mozilla Suite [wikipedia.org] - a browser/email client/HTML editor/IRC client monolith that had lots of promising features, but was too complex and geek oriented to catch on with the general public.

            Firefox exists because in 2002 Blake Ross [blakeross.com] (along with Dave Hyatt [wikipedia.org]) got fed up with the code bloat and designed-by-committee UI of the old Suite, and decided to start a skunkworks [wikipedia.org]-style OSS project to create the anti-Suite: a lean, fast, browser-and-nothing-else tool using the core Mozilla code but jettisoning most of the complexity that had arisen in the Suite over time.

            Back then it was called "Phoenix" (as in, rising from the ashes of Mozilla). The search bar showed up very early in Phoenix's life: Phoenix 0.2 [mozilla.com], to be exact, released in October 2002. And when the search bar landed, it used Google as its engine.

            Because Phoenix was Ross' and Hyatt's personal project, design decisions in those days basically came down to whatever they thought was best. They chose Google for the search engine because in 2002 Google was waaaaaay ahead of the competition in search. Heck, back in those days Yahoo licensed Google Search rather than rolling their own! [wikipedia.org]

            This was literally years before Google offered Mozilla a red cent for search traffic. In 2002 Google was still 2 years away from going public and had nothing like the cash mountain it has today. They certainly weren't running around throwing tens of millions at browser programmers' side projects.

            In other words: Ross and Hyatt chose Google because at the time the decision was a no brainer. Every other search engine was so much worse than Google at returning relevant results that choosing any of them would have been putting the user's needs second, which was contrary to the whole point of Phoenix/Firefox.

            Of course, today the quality of competing engines has mostly caught up, so if they were making the decision today maybe they'd have chosen differently, who knows. But it's a mistake to project the conditions of the world today back upon decisions made five years ago. The tech landscape was very different then.

        • by rtb61 (674572) on Wednesday November 14, 2007 @07:26PM (#21357165) Homepage
          Oddly enough when it comes to business relationships between google and yahoo, I have come across sites with google adwords advertised in yahoo supplied advertising. So google obviously considers it worth while to pay yahoo to provide advertising services.

          When it comes to default search in Firefox, you can't really say google is the default as changing that is simply a matter of clicking the pull down to provide immediate access to a range of other search engines, and the last one used becomes the default on next use, so defaults really also includes wikipedia etc (I can't remember the others that turn up on an initial install).

          So while it would be sensible for M$ to pay Firefox for default listing, they will not, simply because their management style reflects childish immaturity and tantrums, the billy goat is as the billy goat does. For Ballmer making sensible business decisions takes second place to drunken rants and ego driven rages.

          So while google as the main customer of the .com as the main customer they have no greater input into the .org, and it really wont be all that far off until a lot of the other old world media companies realize the benefit of branding their own version of the Mozilla browser.

      • by RonnyJ (651856)
        How about if Firefox randomly chose one of the supplied search engines as the default, but allowed people to change this in the installer? That way, they could get their income from more sources, but people could actively choose their search engine if they wanted (without having to delve into the settings).

        I realise that's not going to happen, and some people may say that Google should be default on the basis that it's considered the best search engine (although if another smaller engine surpassed Google in
    • by elrous0 (869638) * on Wednesday November 14, 2007 @05:13PM (#21355541)
      No company gives another $56 million and still lets them "call all the shots."
      • by Scaba (183684) <joe&joefrancia,com> on Wednesday November 14, 2007 @05:37PM (#21355889)

        Unless they're married.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by jalefkowit (101585)

        And here's at least one case where Mozilla did not, in fact, call the shots: Bug 364297 [diveintomark.org]. (I'd link directly to Bugzilla but they don't accept links from /.)

        Quote from the bug:

        Per contract requirements with Google, we need to make Google our default home page and search provider in CJKT locales.

        For the home page. This may involve simply changing the DNS entries rather than the builds themselves.

        For the search engine, we need to select Google as the default.

        (Emphasis above is mine. "CJKT locales"

    • by griffjon (14945) <.GriffJon. .at. .gmail.com.> on Wednesday November 14, 2007 @05:19PM (#21355619) Homepage Journal
      This is all well and good; but look at Flock, which is Firefox + lots of web 2.0 integration, and very Yahoo-centric. No matter how much moolah Google pours into the Mozilla foundation, at the end of the day, it's still providing crunchy, wholesome GPL'ed software. If Google suddenly turns evil; the code still belongs to the community and if Mozilla won't cut the relationship, someone can fork a version out and cut out the Google-centric features.

      A good bit of caution is wise, but let's not look a $56 million/year gift to the OSS community in the mouth overmuch.
    • Not quite (Score:4, Informative)

      by Wesley Felter (138342) <wesley@felter.org> on Wednesday November 14, 2007 @05:35PM (#21355859) Homepage
      Mozilla only spends about $12M per year, and they have a lot in the bank ($70M?). If you do the math, they can survive for several years if the search engines pull the plug.
    • He might be right in his claim that Mozilla is independent with or without Google's $56 million, but without the $56M Mozilla is a very different company, probably one that cannot support 120 million users or pay developers or CEOs.

      Well, a lot of the contributors to Firefox are already paid by someone else, but that aside I bet both Microsoft and Yahoo would happily bid for the default search position and a whole lot of companies/portals would bid on being the default home page. Aside from that source of income, a lot of companies have a vested interest in there being a full-featured Web browser not controlled by Microsoft. I bet Sun, Adobe, and IBM would all provide either funding or developers if the need arose.

      My final point is

    • by vertinox (846076)
      I'm not saying this is bad, and frankly I don't buy the "OMG Google will subvert Firefox" or whatever the conspiracy theory du jour is, but when 99% (or close to that) of your income comes from a single place, "I call the shots" comes across a little weak.

      Were you registered as a non-profit organization like Mozilla? If so, it would be illegal for your dad to tell you what to do with the money he gave you. That said he just got the right to use the money he gave you as a big tax write off.

      Sure Google could
    • Well the article forgot this quote from Mozilla's CEO "Did I say that right, Larry?"
  • by User 956 (568564) on Wednesday November 14, 2007 @04:50PM (#21355239) Homepage
    Mozilla still calls the shots over Firefox's development.

    Not only that, they write the songs that make the whole world sing.
  • by EllynGeek (824747)
    They're still dodging the question of how to spend all those millions. Sure, the devs and people who support Firefox are all happy. But that happiness will evaporate if they don't think the money is being handled fairly. So as both a non-profit and a FOSS project, which are both accountable in different ways, what is going to happen to all that nice fluffy cash?
    • by asa (33102) <asa@mozilla.com> on Wednesday November 14, 2007 @05:28PM (#21355741) Homepage
      We most certainly have said where the money goes. Read the financial disclosure statement. In summary, the bulk of what we spend goes to personnel and infrastructure and what we don't spend goes into savings/investment.

      - A
      • Do you guys get to use the google jet?
      • I've seen that throughout this thread, you've been very active answering questions. Kudos. I do indeed hope you guys are putting excess cash into a proper investment vehicle (even if it's just a big ol' corporate money market account paying 5%). Then again, I could've just cruised over to the website and read your financial disclosure statement.
  • by facon12 (1128949) on Wednesday November 14, 2007 @04:57PM (#21355321)
    Yes they do exactly what they want. Just the same way a politician will make all of their own decisions after getting millions from oil companies and other "pacs" with special interests.
    • Mozilla: Don't Forget, I am the Decider.
    • Remember, google put safari into android, not firefox. Google constantly gives a ton of money away to any organization working towards their vision of a free internet. That doesn't mean that google has "lobbyists" working inside firefox forcing their decisions one way or the other.
  • Yes, Mozilla gets a lot of money from Google, and it would be naive to assume that they don't have influence. But, some influence from Google may not necessarily be a bad thing, plus, where would mozilla/firefox be in terms of their competitive position if they were $56M/year poorer? Which is the lesser of evils?
    • Sometimes.. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Viewsonic (584922)
      Throwing money at something doesn't automatically create something good. In fact, I think people do the really good work when they're starving artists. Those two guys working out of a garage usually have a hell of a lot more willpower and determination than most fat cats with more money than they know what to do with. They become lax and sterile.

      Well, not always. And Firefox is still a damn good product. So long as it stays that way, I'll still be using it. But if they begin to rest on their laurels, the "n

  • by Junior J. Junior III (192702) on Wednesday November 14, 2007 @04:58PM (#21355337) Homepage
    OK, let's move on then.
  • Let the dissembling begin...

    • by oahazmatt (868057)

      OK, then make MSN the default search
      No, if they really want to prove it, they'll make the Opera download page their default.
      • Opera also gets cash for making Google the default.
      • First, I reckon Google specifically pays for the "service" of being the default page and search engine. Mozilla calling the shots on development has nothing to do with contractual conditions on what amounts to "product placement".

        Second, I doubt MSN search is actually better than Google, and I certainly can't see the point in making the Opera download page the default home page. That's simply a waste of the users' time.

  • If you dont like then use IE.

    Dont like IE? Then use Saffari? Dont like and your using unix then use Konsqueror.

    Anything is better than a convicted monopolist running the show with one browser. Even if Google starts another monopoly we still have 4 free browsers which means more competition. The more browsers the better as it forces webmasters to use more standards and cross test their sites on multiple browsers.

    To me it seems some of the more free software zealots are terrified about anything that is being
    • The more browsers the better as it forces webmasters to use more standards and cross test their sites on multiple browsers.
      You're obviously not a webmaster, and as a webmaster I'd just like to say "fuck you." When you spend the better part of a day getting a site to work in one browser and then find out that another browser doesn't work in it, come back to me and say that more is better.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by TheoMurpse (729043)

      Dont like IE? Then use Saffari? Dont like and your using unix then use Konsqueror.
      Well, I prefer to use Oprah on my Mcbook Pro.
  • by recoiledsnake (879048) on Wednesday November 14, 2007 @05:05PM (#21355439)

    Firefox does not look like a very typical FOSS program anymore in which developers don't get any money back from the masses of users. The developers working at Mozilla are getting paid directly from the money that the users are contributing with their clicks. Hence, I think the mantra of 'if you don't like it, fork it" is not really valid in this scenario. Note this is opposed to projects with paid developers like Apache and the Linux kernel which is supported by corporate entities and not end users.

    Also, I remember that Mozilla wanted contributions for the NYT ad a few years ago and many of my friends who were students barely scraping by, contributed some of their much needed money to the project. Apart from that I guess a ton of people donated money to Mozilla in the past few years thinking that they needed funding badly. Did Mozilla really need it or were they getting enough money from Google to run that ad by themselves? The fact that the CEO of Mozilla gets a compensation of half a million dollars makes it worse.

    Does this also mean the users(who are contributing to the coffers with their use of Firefox) can demand fixes to the nagging bugs and not get a 'if you don't like it fork it' reply? Take a look at this very annoying image captions wrapping bug that plagued users and web developers and was unfixed for seven years despite even stalwarts like XKCD's Randall Munroe complaining in this bugzilla thread. Note that you need to copy paste because bugzilla doesn't allow links from Slashdot https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=45375 [mozilla.org]

    It makes for very entertaining reading. I personally use Opera(I used to be a big supporter of Firefox back in the day) for it's leanness and speed. I would switch over to Firefox in a flash if they fix the bloatness.

    • by QuantumG (50515)
      Sure, if you don't like it, don't use it.

      Then they don't get any money from you.

      • Sure, if you don't like it, don't use it. Then they don't get any money from you.
        How many users of Firefox do you think even know about the fact that Mozilla receives tens of millions of dollars from their clicks?
        • by QuantumG (50515)
          You know. You can choose whether or not you want them to get money from your clicks.. frankly, if Google wants to give the Mozilla foundation money for me choosing to use my preferred browser I'm all for it. Better them forking over the cash than me.
    • Does this also mean the users(who are contributing to the coffers with their use of Firefox) can demand fixes to the nagging bugs and not get a 'if you don't like it fork it' reply?

      No, no more than individual users of large commercial software packages that are contributing by actually paying licensing fees can "demand" changes and compel a positive response. They can, of course, request changes, and they can, if they aren't satisfied with the response, stop supporting Mozilla with their use of Firefox or

      • No, no more than individual users of large commercial software packages that are contributing by actually paying licensing fees can "demand" changes and compel a positive response. They can, of course, request changes, and they can, if they aren't satisfied with the response, stop supporting Mozilla with their use of Firefox or otherwise.

        What you said is true, but then why do people who even request fixes and changes get a ton of +5 insightful 'if you don't like it, for it' replies here on Slashdot? Is that a reasonable response to someone who's asking to fix bugs and leaks?

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by DragonWriter (970822)

          What you said is true, but then why do people who even request fixes and changes get a ton of +5 insightful 'if you don't like it, for it' replies here on Slashdot?

          (1) Because slashdot moderation is fairly meaningless. There are lots of + reasons, and very few - reasons, and concepts that are 180-degrees opposed, on the same thread, will get modded up to +5 because different segments of the community approve for different reasons.

          (2) Because Slashdot isn't the place to request a fix, and "if you don't like

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by asa (33102)
      >I remember that Mozilla wanted contributions for the
      >NYT ad a few years ago and many of my friends who were
      >students barely scraping by, contributed some of their
      >much needed money to the project. Apart from that I
      >guess a ton of people donated money to Mozilla in the
      >past few years thinking that they needed funding badly.
      >Did Mozilla really need it or were they getting enough
      >money from Google to run that ad by themselves?

      Donations to this program happened before there was any seri
    • Come on now $500,000 a year for a CEO is chump change in corporate America today, especially for a company that is pulling in more than $50 million a year.
  • by baldusi (139651) on Wednesday November 14, 2007 @05:08PM (#21355477)
    I know I'll be tagged as paranoid. But it might explain why Mozilla separated Thunderbird. Google doesn't want you to use POP3 or IMAP. They want you to use the web. It just might just have been one of the reasons that were considered when making the decision.
    • by oahazmatt (868057) on Wednesday November 14, 2007 @05:18PM (#21355617) Journal

      Google doesn't want you to use POP3 or IMAP
      But doesn't GMail support both of those, now?
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by bahwi (43111)
      Well, except about a month ago or so they opened up free IMAP for gmail.

      Free IMAP on Gmail [slashdot.org] slashdot article. And I believe they already have POP3 support(I could be wrong, or maybe it's inwards only).
    • by asa (33102) <asa@mozilla.com> on Wednesday November 14, 2007 @05:58PM (#21356201) Homepage
      >I know I'll be tagged as paranoid. But it might
      >explain why Mozilla separated Thunderbird. Google
      >doesn't want you to use POP3 or IMAP. They want
      >you to use the web. It just might just have been
      >one of the reasons that were considered when
      >making the decision.

      It wasn't. Google doesn't have any say in what we do beyond the code and services they contribute. They absolutely don't have any involvement or influence in Thunderbird where they don't contribute anything at all.

      - A
    • by owlnation (858981)

      Google doesn't want you to use POP3 or IMAP

      Not sure I buy that. If they really didn't want you to use it, they'd either not allow it, or do what their competitors Hotmail and Yahoo do -- allow it for a price. My guess is they they do want you not to need to use it, but through good design and features.

      I pop my gmail into Thunderbird -- mainly because in the early part of beta gmail wasn't always accessible, there were more glitches than there have been for a few years.

      No, sorry, but I suspect the

  • by SuperBanana (662181) on Wednesday November 14, 2007 @05:16PM (#21355583)

    Google is the default search engine, and supplier of many of the browser's features (anti-phishing, anti-malware, incorrect URL resolution)

    ...which is the real issue here, to me...though absurd compensation for the CEO and very lopsided revenue from google are others (NO organization should rely on ONE source for its money. Diversification is the name of the game.) Google's services are heavily bundled AND set as the default where there is choice. Does this sound familiar, anyone?

    Now, the question is: if Yahoo, Altavisa, Microsoft, Excite, or Ask (was Teoma), or anyone else for that matter, offers similar services to Firefox for free- will they be allowed to get their foot in the door (via a GOOD user interface to allow selection- modifying about:config params doesn't count) or bundled in (ie, included in the official distribution)?

    • by asa (33102) <asa@mozilla.com> on Wednesday November 14, 2007 @06:14PM (#21356383) Homepage
      > Now, the question is: if Yahoo, Altavisa, Microsoft, Excite,
      > or Ask (was Teoma), or anyone else for that matter, offers
      > similar services to Firefox for free- will they be allowed
      > to get their foot in the door (via a GOOD user interface to
      > allow selection- modifying about:config params doesn't count)
      > or bundled in (ie, included in the official distribution)?

      I take it you've never used Firefox. We include other search services. We've even defaulted to other search services in some geographic locales. The interface for switching among the included services is super easy and even adding services that are not included are easy to add with a click or two (and there are over 13,000 of them available at mycroft.mozdev.org)

      Not only that, any of these companies could (and some do) distribute a custom version of Firefox with their features as the default.

      - A
  • And then rotate through three major search engines every quarter. This quarter it'll be Yahoo, next - Microsoft, then Google again. I'm sure both Yahoo and Microsoft will be delighted to participate.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by luserSPAZ (104081)
      Yeah, except most people *want* to use Google, which is why it wound up as the default in the first place. The money came later. It's nice that it now pays good money, but it started out as the default because it's just the most useful tool. Maybe we can have this discussion again when there's a more useful search engine out there, when it's actually a concern.
      • by evilviper (135110)

        Maybe we can have this discussion again when there's a more useful search engine out there, when it's actually a concern.

        Clusty is better. Results are just about the same quality as Google, and it does a great job of automatically categorizing them, so you can easily narrow down expansive subjects... eg. searching for "putty" could be a nightmare on google, depending on whether the "putty" you're looking for is the more popular one searched for.

        What bothers me, though, isn't that it's not the default, but

  • Oh, certainly! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by rholland356 (466635) on Wednesday November 14, 2007 @05:26PM (#21355719)
    Men serving two masters always say this, and we know it's rubbish.

    The truth will be known as soon as conflicting interests have to be resolved.
  • Google is simply best, its not because Mozilla and Google somehow are the same, Google just happens to be one of the few search engines that loads fast and doesn't display banner ads all over the place, also, most web users use Google as their homepage, so why not set that as the default? Its simply for practical reasons. Because Firefox on Ubuntu has the Free Software Foundation in the bookmarks does that mean that somehow the FSF is giving Ubuntu tons of money? No it is simply practical same thing with Fi
  • Google's support of Firefox helps the company strategically hedge its bets against Microsoft. If Google had to write a browser from scratch, they could do it, but, it would raise up too many weird signals. However, if Google supports Firefox, and gradually gets its arms around it, they get a browser that is free, a strategic stake in controlling something that can help their business. All the way around its just a smart move for them.

    Microsoft owns IE, and would love to screw Google up - imagine the patc
  • interesting (Score:2, Interesting)

    by wwmedia (950346)
    its interesting how the most comments defend mozilla just cause of google's "do no evil" image

    now imagine the outcry if firefox came with live.com as default search and microsoft paud mozilla oh i dunno 120 big ones?
    • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

      by asa (33102)
      Mozilla wouldn't ship live.com as the default because it's a poorer service than Google and sending 130 million Firefox users to a less good service that uses its profits to attack the very mission of Mozilla -- to promote choice and innovation and be an advocate for the non-commercial aspects of the Web and the people using the Web, is just stupid.

      - A
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by wwmedia (950346)
        be an advocate for the non-commercial aspects of the Web

        i see, they are leading by example then with 50million+ a year income...
      • This story should be renamed "Asa Dotzler Responds." (And I, for one, appreciate it.)
  • I really do not understand the constant need some people have to paint Google in a bad manner. Up until this very day Google has been a good netizen and last i checked they wasnt involved in any criminal acts like some other unnamed company. Mozilla does a great job on Firefox and nothing is really worth complaining about. If Google is twisting Mozilla.orgs arm they dont get much for all that money thats for sure. The damn browser is free, both as in beer and freedom. Just fork it or shut up. I do have a
  • Fuck Mozilla (Score:2, Insightful)

    by TFGeditor (737839)
    I have used Firefox for, lo, these many years. It (Mozilla) has yet to address the memory leak and resourcece (cpu time) issues related to Firefox. Why?

    I love the verasitility of Firefox and its functionailty. But I hate that it fucks up/freezs my machine when left open.

    If Firefox wants to be taken seriously, fix these goddamned problems.

God doesn't play dice. -- Albert Einstein

Working...