4696491
story
Comments: 95 +- Technology: Mozilla and Google's "Don't-Be-Evil" Bulldozer on Sunday May 31 2009, @03:40PM
Posted
by
timothy
on Sunday May 31 2009, @03:40PM
from the not-a-transcript-but-better-than-one dept.
from the not-a-transcript-but-better-than-one dept.
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicmozilla.gif); width:80px; height:64px;
mozilla
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicbusiness.gif); width:64px; height:54px;
business
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicgoogle.gif); width:104px; height:38px;
google
background: url(//a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/topicinternet.gif); width:70px; height:73px;
internet
An anonymous reader writes "Mozilla execs John Lilly and Mitchell Baker were interviewed at the WSJ's All Things Digital conference last week. In a wide-ranging conversation, they discussed the history of Firefox, proprietary versus Open Source development and the debut of Chrome and Mozilla's changing relationship with Google. A great interview. Well worth reading. There's video as well."
Related Stories
Submission: Mozilla and Google's "Don't-Be-Evil" Bulld by Anonymous Coward
One of the pleasures of reading old letters is the knowledge that they
need no answer.
-- George Gordon, Lord Byron
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.
Bulldozer (Score:5, Insightful)
The bulldozer quote comes from the interviewer, not the Mozilla guys.
Sometimes it's best to make your own news.
Love that statement (Score:5, Interesting)
"Walt: Why wouldn't it just be better for the consumer to go with the company that's hired experts to do its translations? Baker: How much software do you really think is great? Walt: Not very much. Lilly: But it's all written by experts. Walt nods, point taken."
Re:Love that statement (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Fear of the computer (Score:5, Interesting)
This last part really is a salient point. I think it's true that average end user really does come to fear the PC, and, in my experience, their local IT geek by association. "Leave the damn thing alone!" they cry, "I don't care about OpenOffice, or Foxit Reader, or Notepad++".
Bad experiences tend to be a motivator in this aspect, but sometimes it sends people the other way. After a spyware attack, say, people tend to go one of two ways: even more afraid of their PC or they become open minded to new things like Firefox. That's just my experience..
Re:Fear of the computer (Score:5, Insightful)
Furthermore, this makes the point that it is in Microsoft's interest to not make the computer too safe. If people become comfortable experimenting with their machines, they might learn they don't need Microsoft software.
Parent
Re:Fear of the computer (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't think the parent is trolling. It seems like a valid point in general that there is effectively two ways to sell things to people, be it new or existing customers.
Way 1: desire / feel good.......Example: The iPod. I want one of those and/or I will feel good
Way 2: fear / feel bad..........Example: beauty products. I fear I am ugly (and I will not be loved)
Obviously there are shades of grey, i.e. most products are both to varying degrees. But the culture of fear at the moment is something that nearly every company uses. So, the parent is right. It IS in Microsoft's interest to not make the computer too safe. They might not necessarily go round explicitly scaremongering (FUD and so on), perhaps they do, I don't know. But parent is right, effectively.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, but don't forget that Microsoft can make money with comfortable computing on a subscription-based model.
Re: (Score:2)
> I think it's true that average end user really does come to fear the PC, and, in my experience, their local IT geek by association.
Yes, and for good reason.
> [Average end users] don't care about OpenOffice, or Foxit Reader, or Notepad++
They start to care when the latter are presented as solutions to the former. When users vocalize the reasons they fear the PC, and are presented with Free (or just free) software that reduces or eliminates those reasons, they become a lot more receptive to the altern
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not only has Firefox worked better in every single case, the users are stunned when I tell them that if Firefox does manage to crash, it won't take the rest of their work with it, unlike Internet Explorer.
I daresay that you're spreading a bit of FUD here. I don't think crashing IE has caused general system crashes (and loss of work in other programs) since Windows ME or so. I love firefox myself, but I'm going to convince others to use it on its merits, not on the basis of incorrect facts about the competition.
As to the rest: the problem is that most PC users don't have anyone willing to show them other options; or to demonstrate why they should use them. Most don't even know anybody in a position to
Re: (Score:2)
I just sent a myspace link to a friend, because I wanted her to check out this band's music. The page told her to update her flash player. So I asked her: "Why don't you?". Her reply? "I don't want to install anything new anymore."
Before you chime in and claim she'd be helped by something like Ubuntu's update-manager, here's a story about another friend.
She had received an old computer from an uncle and wanted to use it to use it for e-mail, surfing the net and watching tv via DVB. I set
Re:Fear of the computer (Score:5, Insightful)
Hell, I've been using linux for years and I'm skittish about an update which involves the kernel. If I have a presentation later that day or the next, I'll put it off until afterward. I don't want to be googling and dmesg'ing the bug in console for upward of an hour, when I have something else to do. It has happened...
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Parent is +++ insightful. I totally agree. I am by no means a Linux noob (I help noobs on the Ubuntu forums on occasion) but I too have been in that position, and done the exact same thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Windows (XP, since SP2) and Mac were better in this regard.
I use linux still because it's easier for me to get stuff done overall, but kernel updates do make me flinch.
Re: (Score:2)
The page told her to update her flash player. So I asked her: "Why don't you?". Her reply? "I don't want to install anything new anymore."
Wow, I guess HTML5 is not gonna be rockin' her world anytime soon then...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But I doubt your friend should make it a habit of updating her "flash player" based on what some myspace page tells her.
See the thing is, it isn't that safe. The malware writers are really out to get people like your friend. And even "legit" software makers have done pretty dubious and stupid stuff (in addition to making pretty bad mistakes).
So some of them have been burnt so badly they've decided it's better to not install anything new anymore.
Even if as a result they are m
Re: (Score:2)
I blame the bulk of this on our regular pissings on how "stupid people" have installed malware on their own systems.
If they don't trust that they'll know a good program from a bad one, they'd rather just leave the computer as it is.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed: Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux/*BSD are all broken in that they allow the user to install malware -- software that does stuff no user would ever want. (Some other operating systems like gaming consoles or the iPhone's OS "fix" this by only allowing vendor approved apps.) A better solution would be default limited rights for apps. For example, if a user actually wants to make 100 connections per minute on port 25, they probably know what they are doing. Similarly for a key logger. None of Windows, OS X
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah something like this might help:
http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-bugs/2007-09/msg02994.html [opensuse.org]
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+bug/156693 [launchpad.net]
Not easy to implement.
Re: (Score:2)
Cut to yesterday and he's having trouble accessing a particular page. After about ten minutes of troubleshooting on the phone, I asked "You aren't still using IE
Re:Fear of the computer (Score:5, Insightful)
That reminds me of something.
Imagine the average Firefox newbie. Do they really, really care if Mozilla is v2.0.2, v2.0.12, v3.0.10 or whatever. Why not just drop the whole "v3.0.10 is now available for download!" and just say "Update available. Want to update your Firefox?". Because anyone who knows the first thing about computers can go to Help -> About and check their version if they really want. To Joe Moz in the street who wants to browse and isn't yet a disciple, all the version stuff is just numbers. It means nothing. It's making their browsing experience a bit more complicated as opposed to a bit more easy.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
not very interesting (Score:4, Informative)
I disagree with the slashdot summary. The article is really not that interesting at all. It's very shallow, and it's aimed at a general audience, not a geek audience. I didn't learn anything from it at all. Seriously.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Aside from webmail and Outlook (which is $$), there's Thunderbird, and... okay, Eudora is probably still around, Pegasus Mail probably isn't dead yet.... and, ah.... idunno, Thunderbird's kinda the big one in any geek's repertoire.
Opera Mail, best mail. Mail.app is pretty spiffy too.
Re: (Score:2)
There's The Bat [ritlabs.com], from RitLabs, which is a very versatile e-mail client. It used to be mostly for power users, having extremely complicated features, until version 3, when the developers tried to appeal to the mainstream. It is now a polished and refined e-mail program, with more features than most. It is reminiscent of a modern version of Pegasus or Eudora. In fact, I switched from Eudora to The Bat when Eudora started feeling a bit stale.
There's other e-mail clients out there, it's just that e-mail is
Put honest links in the @#$@ summary (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, as for Timothy's "not-a-transcript-but-better-than-one" heading: no. This summary in the text is not as good as a transcript, and the video is not as good as a transcript, because reading a transcript is faster, and is something I can do at work. (Yes, I know that it's Sunday).
Re:Put honest links in the @#$@ summary (Score:5, Funny)
It's version 2.Oh, man... get with the program. We're fuckin' synergizin' here.
Parent
Hair... (Score:5, Funny)
Did google cut funding half way through Mitchell Bakers' haircut?
Or is the haircut open source, so anyone can come along and change it as they please?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yes. All you need to do is Google yourself, and it'll return a realtime photo.
Re:Can't See Comment Titles (Score:4, Funny)
Pull your head out of your GNU/Ass and fix your fucking code.
Gimme the source code for lib0ass. I wanna compile my own.
...I'm lonely
Parent
libass? (Score:5, Funny)
Pull your head out of your GNU/Ass and fix your fucking code.
Gimme the source code for lib0ass. I wanna compile my own.
...I'm lonely
Right here! [sourceforge.net] On a sister site of Slashdot, no less!
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Change button? (Score:2)
And what does the "Hope" button do?
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks! That worked. Now that's change I can believ... uh, sorry.
-dZ.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I have the same problem, but only when I get to the discussion from the rss feed. If I go through the front page there are no problems. Oh, and logging in from the discussion page gives an error saying that something don't exist.
I use the classic discussion format, btw.
It seems that what happens is that the new and old formats gets mixed together.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"Can't See Comment Titles" is /. bug, not Firefox (Score:2)
The same behaviour is seen using Chromium 3.0.183.0, Epiphany 2.26.1, Firefox 3.0.10, Galeon 2.0.6, and Opera 9.64 (all running on Ubuntu 9.04). Comment titles are white when logged-in, but appear normal when not logged-in.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Amen, Amen, Amen. Ever since the move to a modern codebase (which was desperately needed), Slashdot has been a huge bugfest. What happened to the open source ideal of people being able to jump in and rapidly respond to bugs? And if Slashcode isn't open in this way, then why the hell not?
Re: (Score:2)
Get Firefox!
http://www.getfirefox.net/ [getfirefox.net]
Re:Can't See Comment Titles (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's "Do No Evil", not "Don't Be Evil" (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It's an important distinction, too... the first option allows for Evil acts (they just need to be outweighed by good acts -- the net outcome of all of Google's acts must be either neutral or good). The second option would severely hamper their ability to take over the word (or, worst-case-scenario, end the world, a la Googol the Destroyer).
Personally, I think Google's motto should be "See all evil, Hear all evil, Use all evil data col
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
As a long time Googler, I can tell you the correct motto is "Don't be Evil".
Google's motto is 'Don't be Evil', and we have a similar motto for web developers: 'Don't be Eval'. (its kind of funny if you've ever dealt with security and user input, if not, you won't get it even if I explained it)
Saying 'do no evil' is being delusional and assuming you are perfect. Instead "don't BE evil" is about always trying to do the right thing, and when you occasionally screw up, accepting responsibility and trying to m
Re:It's "Do No Evil", not "Don't Be Evil" (Score:5, Informative)
The traditional expression may be "Do No Evil" (as in the wise monkeys [wikipedia.org] stories), but Google's motto is specifically [google.com] "Don't be evil".
The distinction is important, too. As far as I can tell, Google intended their motto to be an internal shorthand way of saying "let's run the company in a way that doesn't piss off users--give people what they want and make them have a good experience..." Hence "Don't be evil" -- don't do things that will make users say "this company is an asshole" (e.g. forcing lock-in, being "too corporate", nickel and diming customers...). Just read the story of how the motto was coined [wikipedia.org]: it was an attempt by the engineers to remind the corporate types that they shouldn't mistreat customers or forget their quirky roots.
Google never intended their motto to mean that they would single handedly save the world, or even that none of their actions would have both pros and cons. People have unfortunately really latched onto this idea that Google claims to be saintly, and thus attack Google when any of their actions have a negative side.
People are free to complain about the things companies do. But it irks me whenever people twist other people's words to make their point. And the constant misunderstanding of Google's motto is one example of this.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
That's the problem with absolute concepts like "evil". While you consider data mining to be evil, clearly they don't.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, but as long as their motto is "Don't be evil", as opposed to "Don't do evil", there's no problem, and it can't even stand up in court.
Google Attorney: Your honor, we all agree that data mining is evil, yes?
Judge: I guess.
Google Attorney: Yet, Google is much more than data mining, right?
Judge: True, go on.
Google Attorney: In fact, Google is not data mining.
Judge: uh, ok.
Google Attorney: I move to dismiss the charges, for Google is not data mining, ergo it is not evil.
Judge: but you do data mining...
Googl