Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Mozilla The Internet

Mozilla Branding Strategy Clarified 176

Posted by CowboyNeal from the all-in-the-name dept.
scottfi writes "Christopher Blizzard has published to mozilla.org an article entitled Mozilla Branding Strategy, which clarifies the position of mozilla.org on naming of the application suite and the separate applications in milestone 1.4 and beyond. The Mozilla Firebird and Mozilla Thunderbird names are simply codenames, and the resulting products will be referred to as 'Mozilla Browser' and 'Mozilla Mail'." This makes the whole name debate seem kind of moot. Luckily Futurama has yet to contact us for using their character names as our development codenames.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mozilla Branding Strategy Clarified More

Mozilla Branding Strategy Clarified

Comments Filter:

  • I can't believe there even IS a name debate... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Nijika ( 525558 ) on Saturday April 26, 2003 @08:02AM (#5814361) Homepage Journal
    Talk about some petty squabbles. Sorry, but that's really what it is. Mozilla is a solid browser that's free. The codename thing makes sense to me, as one who uses Debian on a regular.
    • I liked my names better, but "Dumb and Dumber" are already copywrited.

  • Hrmm (Score:5, Funny)

    by acehole ( 174372 ) on Saturday April 26, 2003 @08:03AM (#5814364) Homepage

    "Luckily Futurama has yet to contact us for using their character names as our development codenames."

    Well if they do, you could always say "Bite my shiny metal ass"

  • why now? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 26, 2003 @08:04AM (#5814366)
    couldn't they have said that a bit earlier, or did they just find the flame wars funny?

    • Re:why now? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 26, 2003 @08:14AM (#5814390)
      Obviously, the flame wars made them change their mind.

      [shiki soku ze kuu!]
      • Yes, the reaction clearly affect them. This is a way for them to backpedal without losing face. Firebird should accept this as a reasonable response and make some positive "feel good" statements about Mozilla so we can all just move on.
    • I guess they were just thinking about what to do.

    • Think Dilbert (Score:5, Funny)

      by MyNameIsFred ( 543994 ) on Saturday April 26, 2003 @08:30AM (#5814426)
      couldn't they have said that a bit earlier, or did they just find the flame wars funny?
      I would suggest asking Dilbert. I think the scenario played like this -- a worker bee noted the flamewar, suggested to management that a response was needed. Schedule three meetings to decide if a response is really needed. Schedule two more to examine potential responses. Present proposals to management, with a recommended solution. Management sends the study team back to research the idea further. Lather, Rinse, Repeat. Four days later, after a grand total of 52 meetings, a response is made. Management is now reconsidering their decision.

    • Re:why now? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by NickFortune ( 613926 ) on Saturday April 26, 2003 @08:31AM (#5814433) Homepage Journal
      I think that's what is known as an "graceful climbdown" - the mozilla crew back away from an unpopular (and poorly thought out, IMO) descision without losing face.

      Of course, it could have genuinely been a misunderstanding. Throwing away the all good publicity mozilla-the-browser has gathered by choosing a new name always did seem an odd sort of move.

      • Re:why now? (Score:4, Informative)

        by bunratty ( 545641 ) on Saturday April 26, 2003 @09:17AM (#5814526)
        Throwing away the all good publicity mozilla-the-browser has gathered by choosing a new name always did seem an odd sort of move.
        The name Firebird was chosen because there were legal problems with the Phoenix name. The new name was needed so that a new version of Phoenix/Firebird could be released. So Firebird was never a replacement name for the Mozilla Browser, just a replacement for Phoenix. After Mozilla 1.4 is released, the trunk will switch over to use Firebird/Thunderbird, so then there will be no confusion calling them Mozilla Browser and Mozilla Mail.
        • The name Firebird was chosen because there were legal problems with the Phoenix name.

          Which is why people here think the Mozilla anouncement is BS. Pheonix was not a code name but the name of an alternative Gecko/XUL browser. Now the Mozilla people are saying that the new name for Pheonix (which the Mozilla team will adopt as standard) is ONLY a code name when it was previously the REAL name of the browser (and why another company complained about the conflict). This anouncement is obvious backpeddling

          • Re:why now? (Score:3, Interesting)

            by Sophrosyne ( 630428 )
            I think technically Mozilla is only a code name as well- They've always just been development browsers for netscape-
          • Many people are saying that Firebird is only a codename, but that's clearly not correct. If you download the Mozilla Firebird browser today, it says "Mozilla Firebird" in the title bar. It is the real name of the browser right now and for the next few months, until Mozilla 1.4 is released.

      • Re:why now? (Score:5, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 26, 2003 @09:25AM (#5814556)
        I don't think that's quite true. As someone who's worked on Mozilla for a couple of years now (not a member of mozilla.org, no official capacity, blah blah blah), this is basically consistent with everything that's happened before: the stuff released by mozilla.org is known simply as "Mozilla" or "Mozilla [component]" to refer to a specific component. Side projects like native browsers, etc. get the non-descriptive names like Firebird, Galeon, etc. Naming controversy or no, I wouldn't ever have expected the "Firebird" name to be applied to the browser once it became the main, shipping product of mozilla.org.

        The one backdown I think I see came earlier, and it's prepending "Mozilla" to Firebird and Thunderbird; normally, "Mozilla" hasn't been attached to any of the subsidiary products.

        Personally, I haven't been able to get too heated up about the whole debate: I think it would be courteous to change the name if it were reasonable, but by the time we came up with a name everyone liked, ran it through legal again, and so forth, Firebird would be so close to landing on the trunk and becoming "Mozilla" anyway that I don't think it's worth the effort.

    • Re:why now? (Score:5, Informative)

      by bunratty ( 545641 ) on Saturday April 26, 2003 @08:37AM (#5814446)
      Over a week ago, Asa pointed out that the Firebird name might not stick for more than a few months [mozillazine.org]. In that post, he mentions Mozilla Browser as a possible name for the 1.5 release.
      • What's wrong with calling it just that? It's the Mozilla browsing core and, er, that's it. Nice and simple, rather like Phoenix / Firebird / whatever itself.

        It would also have zero legal problems assosciated with it and that would leave the project team free to develop it. Just choose a plain, functional name for a plain, functional browser.
        • What's wrong with that is that there is already a Mozilla Browser [mozilla.org]. The Phoenix/Firebird browser [mozilla.org] is a separate project from the Mozilla Browser, just as the Camino browser [mozilla.org] is a separate project. If you just call them all Mozilla Browser, confusion will abound.

          After Mozilla 1.4 is released, Mozilla Firebird and Mozilla Thunderbird will replace the existing browser and mail parts of the Mozilla Application Suite. Then we can refer to them as Mozilla Browser and Mozilla Mail without confusion.

      • Over a week ago, Asa pointed out that the Firebird name might not stick for more than a few months [mozillazine.org]. In that post, he mentions Mozilla Browser as a possible name for the 1.5 release.

        That stance, though , is a bit inconsistent with other statements that "Firebird" was approved all the way up through the AOLTW chain of command. One would not spend the political capital to get something like that approved by the "corner suits" if it were intended only for internal consumption. I suspect t

    • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Saturday April 26, 2003 @08:53AM (#5814488)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • There's no logical reason why the stripped browser should continue to be refered to as "Firebird", virtually nobody calls it that NOW

        That's probably because they still call it "Phoenix." Honestly, I am a bit sadden by this decision. I really liked the name "Mozilla Firebird" as a web browser (a lot of people did), and, based on the fact that AOL legal researched the name for months, one would suspect that the Mozilla organization did as well.

        I personally think Mozilla is just being nice here. Here wa

        • Re:why now? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by rossjudson ( 97786 ) on Saturday April 26, 2003 @10:35AM (#5814804) Homepage
          They "researched it for months", and didn't come up with the fact that one of the most significant open source database efforts had the same name? That's pretty crappy research, if you ask me. Fire that guy.

          It seems that there are a lot of people who think that the Interbase/Starbase/Interbase/Firebird group is after publicity. That's plain stupid.

          I've worked with it, on and off, for almost 18 years. That's hard to believe. My first job, while still in college, was coding automated test suites for Cognos' rebranding of Interbase.

          It's a badass DB when it comes to self-maintenance. I've never encountered any other database that could just run, uninterrupted, for a couple of YEARS, underneath some pretty heavy duty stuff (industrial equipment).
          • They "researched it for months", and didn't come up with the fact that one of the most significant open source database efforts had the same name? That's pretty crappy research, if you ask me. Fire that guy. It's a database. Perhaps I'm not fully informed, but how is it possible to confuse "Mozilla Firebird" Web Browser with "Firebird" Relational Database? In any case like I said, they really should have expected the possibility that one day a popular software package in a different domain would appear and
            • Firebird is somewhat generic, but seriously -- my point here is that the AOL legal department didn't exactly look hard. I do consider Firebird to be a pretty major open source database project. It's worth of a lot more attention than it's gotten.

              The "lack of confusion" issue doesn't really hold water. With that reasoning I can go ahead and release the JBoss office suite and the Apache graphing package.
              • An interesting point. But using your example, you would not be able to release a JBoss office suit because "JBoss" is not a generic term. However, I don't see a problem with an Apache graphic package.

                But regarding you first point, I think it's just the opposite. I think AOL Legal almost certainly knew about Firebird RDBM, but they didn't see a legal issue with that (it is a database after all).

                I'm not a lawyer, so all this is my personal opinion and from what general knowledge I have of the law. Regar
        • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Why all the drama? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by grafikhugh ( 529618 ) on Saturday April 26, 2003 @08:04AM (#5814367) Homepage
    From a marketing stand point it would be a large step backwards to remove "mozilla" from the naming scheme. I am glad this is not the case, but now wonder why they made such a big deal of the code names in their newest roadmap? And why not just develop the projects under the decidedly less h4x0r names "mozilla mail" and "mozilla browser"?

    • Re:Why all the drama? (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Because the developers are geeks and prefer cool-sounding code names. They (also, the code names) are not meant to see the light of day; indeed, the Mozilla suite itself is only for development purposes, not end-users.

      • Re:Why all the drama? (Score:1, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Gee, see, that's what I get for pointing out the obvious. I feel like Spider Jerusalem phoning random call-in tv shows.
    • Firebird is still the name of the browser product for now. It's not just a codename. The new name was needed for legal reasons so they could release a new version of the browser.
    • Because if/when another major update comes along, the name of the shipping product can REMAIN "mozilla browser" while the name used to refer to it internally in the project can change to avoid confusion.
  • Use those "codenames" for another 5 years until it
    reaches 2.0!

  • "Mozilla Branding Strategy"? (Score:5, Funny)

    by exhilaration ( 587191 ) on Saturday April 26, 2003 @08:09AM (#5814379)
    I was expecting this article to be about *real* branding, like Mozilla dolls, Mozilla Cola, Mozilla Mega Hold Hairspray, etc.

    I had my credit card ready. :(

    What a disappointment.

    • Re:"Mozilla Branding Strategy"? (Score:5, Funny)

      by T-Kir ( 597145 ) on Saturday April 26, 2003 @08:17AM (#5814395) Homepage

      Or you could take a different approach, well with the fire connection (Phoenix, Firebird) they could literally 'brand' you, a nice permanent advertisment somewhere on your body.

      Time to stoke up the fire people, a red hot Mozilla branding session is needed :-)

      • In England, one of the main cinema advertising agencies (Carlton, who also have a TV station [carlton.com]) have a star for a logo. In the ident for their cinema ads, the logo becomes a branding iron, which is shoved in your face. Makes me want to go to the movies even more!

        Carlton also have some damn fine TV idents, which are simply eye droppingly cool. even better, they were rendered on Linux! W00t! See them here [ukonline.co.uk] in glorious RealVideo, but please be gentle...

  • Sounds good to me. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ivern76 ( 665227 ) on Saturday April 26, 2003 @08:12AM (#5814382)

    This is good news, in my opinion. Pointless fights over a product name don't help the cause...call it Mozilla B for all I care, it's still going to be the browser I use.

    "What's in a name? A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." -Juliet

  • Advertising by Confusion and chaos.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by jkrise ( 535370 ) on Saturday April 26, 2003 @08:13AM (#5814387) Journal
    Microsoft's Palladium, now renamed "Next Generation Secure Computing Services"
    Opera's Bork edition targeting MSN
    Mozilla Firebird, Thunderbird chaos...
    Banias codename - Centrino branding by Intel
    Windows .Not Server is Windows Server System 2003
    and
    Trustworthy Computing Platform Alliance is now Trustworthy Computing Group.

    Should be interesting to see actual market share/ market penetration vs. Confusion. Methinks Mozilla would be lucky to have as many downloads as posts on Slashdot, more so the database chaps.

    Good fun all, while it lasted.

  • What's in a name? (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 26, 2003 @08:25AM (#5814410)
    How about naming their product "Bob", I'm sure no-one would mind that...

  • This doesn't change much IMO (Score:5, Interesting)

    by platypus ( 18156 ) on Saturday April 26, 2003 @08:26AM (#5814413) Homepage
    I have nothing to do with firebird, the database, but I can understand their concerns. And while this document seems to try to remedy much problems, I expect that not to work in the real world.
    The biggest problem for firebird the db is IMO namespace pollution on search engines. Not from the dull marketing standpoint, but from the developer standpoint, because it makes it harder to find archived mailing list/news messages which might cover a problem a developer might face.

    This document won't change that, I fear.

    PS: I'm no legal expert, but if they wanted to use the names as codenames, why did they have to involve the legal team before?

    • Re:This doesn't change much IMO (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Is it so hard grasping that they changed their mind after all the negative feedback?

    • Re:This doesn't change much IMO (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Build6 ( 164888 ) on Saturday April 26, 2003 @08:45AM (#5814463)
      PS: I'm no legal expert, but if they wanted to use the names as codenames, why did they have to involve the legal team before

      In one word: Apple.

      Apple had a nasty experience where - as a mark of *respect*/homage for the fellow - the internal development team for one of their PowerMacs decided to use "Sagan" as the code name for the machine that was in development. This is a name that would *never* be used externally in marketing or branding or promotion, but when Sagan heard of it he got pissed off and went at Apple with his lawyers etc. - he basically felt that use of his name would suggest that he endorsed it, or that Apple would gain free-publicity etc. -- which certainly came as a surprise to the devteam. After that they decided they didn't like Sagan that much anymore, so they changed the code name to BHA. Sagan sued again when word spread (true or not :-) that "BHA" stood for "Butt-Head Astronomer".

      You can read more if you google, but here's one link:

      http://www.petting-zoo.net/~deadbeef/archive/582 .h tml
      • The judge threw out the second case, declaring that no right-thinking person could possibly believe that the professional reputation of a highly respected scientist would be tarnished by calling them a "butt-head".

    • Re:This doesn't change much IMO (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The Firebird DB homepage comes out at the top of a Google search for "firebird". That is something everybody would hate to lose. But on the other hand: ..."of about 681,000". Is it reasonable to expect the name "firebird" to have any distinguishing effect all by itself? If you're looking for something specific, chances are that the additional search terms (for the specific topic) will distinguish the scope as well. That said, I'm relieved to see that they won't ditch the brand "Mozilla" and are going to use

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Name Game (Score:1, Interesting)

    by bryanp ( 160522 )
    This makes the whole name debate seem kind of moot.

    This suddenly puts me in mind of the controversy several years back about one of the Mac OS releases. The internal codename for the release was "Carl Sagan." Mr. Sagan objected (for what reason I don't know) and they changed the name of the project to "BHA." Then Sagan found out that BHA was short for "Butt Head Astronomer" and sued for defamation or some such BS.

    (He lost.)

  • I'm Confused - Questions for you (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Saint Stephen ( 19450 ) on Saturday April 26, 2003 @08:31AM (#5814431) Homepage Journal
    I build phoenix from source (for XFT support) every week or so. I have some questions:

    (1) What changes will I have to make to .mozconfig to build Firebird? Will I just stop defining MOZ_PHOENIX and then moz will build like phoenix?

    (2) What additional (cough bloat) features will Phoenix acquire when it becomes the main branch? I don't want Firebird to bloat up at all! If anything, it should go *more* in the faster/smaller direction, not the other way!

  • Finally! (Score:4, Funny)

    by joeytsai ( 49613 ) on Saturday April 26, 2003 @08:50AM (#5814478) Homepage
    Good, now the three people using the Firebird database should be satisfied.

  • give a simple name (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mcn ( 112855 ) on Saturday April 26, 2003 @08:50AM (#5814480)
    Whatever the final name, make it simple and more `layman', for the sake of the less technical consumers. I find open source software has names that look foreign and cryptic to these people. Eg, Ark vs Winzip, Kppp vs dialup networking, noatun or xine vs media player or realplayer. They usually can't remember such names, and make them difficult to communicate with their peers (such as those newbies who, like them, could have just started to experiment OSS, non-windows, non-mac from the windows world) regarding such softwares & their use.
    • The 'easy' names of commercial applications are mostly generic terms such as windows, word, dialup networking. It's simple propaganda to make people believe that computing == using MS products. Of course we could have products like Gnu Word (because word is a generic term, only MS Word is a trademark) but we want to be a little more creative and original than MS droids, don't we?
  • So if FireBird/Mozilla/TheBestDamnedBrowser is going to be the default Mozilla Browser (a Good Thing(tm)), is the Mozilla we all know and sorta like going to go away?
    In other words, will FB take over Mozilla-Vanilla's role in the Mozilla.exe/tar.gz that most people download? SeaMonkey or whatever it's codename is :)

  • Happy ending (Score:3, Insightful)

    by arvindn ( 542080 ) on Saturday April 26, 2003 @08:56AM (#5814494) Homepage Journal
    The document clearly says that the names Firebird and Thunderbird will be discouraged after the 1.4 release. Note that the 1.4 release is scheduled [mozilla.org] less than a month away..

    So this is really a face saving way of retracting the name change. This should definitely put an end to the heat from firebird database fans, without making mozilla.org or AOL legal look like jackasses. Diplomacy at its finest!

    So, the *bird names will be used only by developers during a one-month period to refer to the codebase not the product. After that it will be called mozilla browser and mozilla mail. Which is GREAT, because there was NEVER a need to use these pseudo-catchy names instead of just Mozilla/ComponentName building on the brand value and recognition.

    • Re:Happy ending (Score:3, Informative)

      by bunratty ( 545641 )
      Note that the 1.4 release is scheduled less than a month away.
      But the roadmap has not been updated to indicate that the 1.4 branch will have release candidates in preparation for a new stable branch to replace the 1.0 branch. I wouldn't be surprised if it takes several months for version 1.4 to be released, similar to what happened on the Mozilla 1.0 branch last year.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Remember, true geeks say it GNU/Linux [gnu.org].

      er... Mozilla Firebird

      er... Mozilla Browser
    • > So this is really a face saving way of retracting
      > the name change.

      Except for the fact that work on this document (discussion about what the final shipping names would be) started _before_ Asa made his announcement... If people had known there would be such a hissy-fit over the codenames, they would have waited till the final names were decided on before saying what the new codename was.

  • "Mozilla Firebird" is in the window title! (Score:5, Informative)

    by njchick ( 611256 ) on Saturday April 26, 2003 @08:58AM (#5814496) Journal
    Current nightly snapshot of Phoenix is called phoenix-i686-pc-linux-gnu.tar.gz, the executable is called phoenix, however, the title bar has "Mozilla Firebird". It's not like they are using that name internally - it's exposed to the end users.
    • Yes, the article summary is wrong. Mozilla Firebird still is the name of the product until Mozilla version 1.4 is released. Read my many posts above for still further clarification.
    • That's what I'm confused about, is Phoenix really going to replace the stock Mozilla browser? I thought they branched into two different projects.
      • That's what I'm confused about, is Phoenix really going to replace the stock Mozilla browser? I thought they branched into two different projects.

        Yes. They're merging back together. After 1.4, there will be no more Mozilla application as it exists today. The Mozilla Browser will be the browser formerly known as Phoenix. The Mozilla Mail application will be a stand-alone mail client. Both of these and other Mozilla applications will require the Gecko engine and associated libraries to be installed as
  • : sir the OSS people managed to contain there differences no body is suing...I'm afraid things are back to normal
    <insane evil voice> :Foiled again.... But I will be back...muhaaa haa</insane evil voice>

  • Stupidity (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Organic_Info ( 208739 ) on Saturday April 26, 2003 @09:35AM (#5814582)
    This whole naming argument is a good example of the lack of thought people put into naming their products. The firebird database people should have distiguished their name e.g. FirebirdDB or what ever just as Mozilla should have been firebirdbrowser firebirdweb or whatever.

    If you use a really generalised term to name your project/product there are bound to be clashes and cross branding. This is only going to happen more often until people give more thought to their naming schemes.

    The stupidity of who has more right to the name is bollocks paticuarly if the name is ripped straight out of a dictionary and not individualised.

  • vote for Super Turtle Gamera (Score:5, Funny)

    by frankie ( 91710 ) on Saturday April 26, 2003 @09:55AM (#5814633) Journal
    I still say the Mozilla project should ditch this mythological bird theme and go back to their naming roots: Monster Island [geocities.com]:
    • The slimmed-down son-of-Mozilla (nee Phoenix/Firebird) must be renamed Mozooki.
    • The three-headed mail-news-irc client is obviously Mozidrah.
    • And there's plenty of room for future projects: Mozthra, Modan, Mozamera, etc.
  • Does anybody know what will happen with the other components from the Mozilla Suite? I haven't seen them mentioned.
    Venkman (JavaScript Debugger) will propably be an extension to Firebird Browser, but what about the remaining components like Composer, ChatZilla etc?
    I doubt that Composer will be an addon to Firebird or Thunderbird. That wouln't make any sense.

    • Re:What about Composer etc.? (Score:4, Informative)

      by bunratty ( 545641 ) on Saturday April 26, 2003 @01:55PM (#5815663)
      From the Mozilla Roadmap [mozilla.org]:
      The other integrated components of the Mozilla application suite, Calendar, Chatzilla, and Composer (the HTML editor application), are not going away, either. We're not sure yet how they'll evolve -- whether they'll become standalone toolkit applications (and if so, based on which XUL toolkit), or popular add-ons to Phoenix (if so, they will need to use its new XUL toolkit).

  • Mozilla browser is a bit of a mouthful (Score:3, Interesting)

    by melonman ( 608440 ) on Saturday April 26, 2003 @09:56AM (#5814640) Journal

    No-one is going to talk about Mozilla Browser, except maybe on the Mozilla mailing list. It will get shortened to Mozilla, which now apparently means at least 2 different programs that do two entirely different jobs. It's going to be like dropping the second word of "MS Word" and "MS Outlook" and then wondering why everyone gets confused.

    Can't we have short if arcane Linux-like contractions such as moznav and mozmail? At least then we would know what we are talking about.

    • When the Minnesota Wild hockey team was created, a company who's brand was "Minnesota Wild" sued the hockey team for trademark infringment. The hockey team's defence was that the name of the hokey team was "Minnesota Wild National Hockey Team" (or something similar), so therefor it 'clearly' did not infringe on any trademarks...

      The hockey team won.

  • Let's just accept it... (Score:5, Funny)

    by unlinear ( 235476 ) on Saturday April 26, 2003 @10:27AM (#5814759)
    ...All browsers are named after cars.

    Microsoft/Ford Explorer [fordvehicles.com]

    Apple/GMC Safari [gmc.com]

    Netscape/Lincoln Navigator [lincolnvehicles.com]

    Omni Group/DodgeOmni[web] [xmission.com]

    iCab... not even going to bother. I'm hoping you'll see the connection.

    My point?

    The Mozilla group is making a Big Mistake with the upcoming changes.

    Point one: not naming their browser after a car. People want to see their browsers named after cars. If Microsoft does it, it HAS to have been researched on the market.

    Two: People want to see monolithic browsers using up resources like there's no tomorrow. With every major browser out there named after either an SUV, a minivan or a sporty pickup-type-car, gas guzzling is a must-have feature in a browser.

    Therefore, I proclaim Mozilla's 1.5 efforts flawed, and doomed, like BSD.
    • This is unquestionably true. Look at the total lack of success for Opera, despite the fact that it's a very high-quality browser, much faster than Navigator or Explorer, and with better CSS support. Would you drive a car called "Opera"? It sounds like a weenie hybrid hydrogen powered two-seater commuter hippie mobile, except EVEN MORE GUTLESS! Drivers of Plymouth Neons and Toyota Echoes would snicker at drivers of Operas! And iCab, well, like you said. Good God. Other than the Omni, which of course is used
    • There's a lot to be said for consumer friendly names. Look at the marketing for cars. They usually use some abstract concept (e.g. emotion) to market cars due to the difficulty in differentiating between one car from another. They all have the same features. They all take you from A to B.

      The same can be said for browers. All browsers are essentially the same. Maybe a few extra features here or there, but that's about it. What is becoming important (if it hasn't already become so) is how the web browser m
    • Mozilla Murano. I think that sounds nice.
  • IMO the first thing the Mozilla team needs to do is get rid of ALL similarities with Netscape.

    I don't care whether Netscape 6/7/whatever is a good browser, the way they completely FUCKED up the 4.x series had made me lose their trust forever. And I know I'm not alone. I did a summer this year which involved some HTML, and we still had to make sure it worked on NS4 because it was still used by something like 1% of their users. Yay. Forget about using CSS, let's stick to tables because that's the only way of
  • This legal opinion [mozillazine.org] may clarify the reasons behind the backdown.
    • A trademark must be defended. They have already stated that they are aware of many other software programs that use the name. If you have rights to a trademark you cannot say "Well I don't care about Joe infringing on my trademark, but I'm going to sue the hell out of Mike for doing so," you defend it or you lose it, simple as that. Regardless of the rights they may have had to the name, they admittedly never defended it.
    • Are you suggesting that perhaps AOL's legal team didn't understand how trademark law worked in electronic mediums until some lady's husband piped in with some ill-founded threats?

  • Here's a crazy idea. (Score:3, Funny)

    by falsification ( 644190 ) on Saturday April 26, 2003 @02:02PM (#5815708) Journal
    Here's a crazy idea: come up with a unique name!!!!

    K.I.S.S.

  • Call me cynical, but.. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by robbo ( 4388 ) <slashdotNO@SPAMsimra.net> on Saturday April 26, 2003 @04:38PM (#5816388)
    imho, the world's gone to hell in a handbasket when an open source project worries about its brand identity. Stick to writing solid, standards-compliant code and let the community take care of promotion, imho.

    Quibbling about whether to call it Phoenix, Mozilla Phoenix or Mozilla is a waste of everyone's time, and when you compose documents like this [gnu.org], you usually find yourself on the receiving end of a large flame attack.
  • Jodie Foster and the email client Winona Ryder...

    How's that?

    We could also "alias" the names to anything the user wants - that could be an installation option - pick the name you want to call the browser and email client.

    Stand up for freedom! Why let some company or collection of geeks choose the name of your tools?

    Down with marketing! Name everything "anonymous"!
    If it works for poetry and prose, it can work for software...

Slashdot Top Deals

Some people claim that the UNIX learning curve is steep, but at least you only have to climb it once.

Close