The Biggest Loser in Google Search Ruling Could Be Mozilla and Firefox (fortune.com) 111
Mozilla, the non-profit behind the Firefox browser, faces an uncertain future following Monday's landmark antitrust ruling against Google. The decision, which found Google illegally maintained its search monopoly, puts Mozilla's primary funding source at risk. In 2021-2022, Mozilla received $510 million from Google out of $593 million total revenue, according to its latest financial report. Fortune adds: You can be sure that critics of the judge's ruling will highlight the potentially devastating impact on Mozilla to make the case that the antitrust ruling will have unintended consequences on smaller tech industry players. Others might argue that Mozilla hasn't done enough with those spoils to differentiate its Firefox browser, or that it could cut a deal with another search engine like Bing if its Google deal goes away completely. Either way, Google will appeal the suit so a long battle may ensue. And there's another big domino to fall: the judge will rule on the remedy or remedies -- essentially, the business-model penalties -- that Google will face. Apple also stands to lose more than $20 billion a year that Google pays the iPhone-maker to be the default search engine on Safari. But as Fortune notes, "Apple is a large, diversified company with many sources of revenue."
I think the eds a word or two (Score:3)
I think the eds a word or two.
Or -- the bots that pass for eds couldn't fit the whole thing in the space of the title, so it dropped a few words.
Never change, /. Dropped words and dupe articles is what makes you, you.
Re: (Score:2)
If you not Yoda speak know, you nerd not enough to on Slashdot be.
So, will the DOJ now pay Mozilla? (Score:2)
So, where are the other search companies? Are they willing to pay to make THEIR search the default for Firefox and other browsers? If not, then how about the DOJ pay for the lost revenues if they don't like that Google was the only one willing to pay the money.
Re: (Score:2)
Firefox already gets paid by a lot of regional search engines.
It's just that payout is way smaller than google and English (+ other default google) installations.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't need to "argue" a fact that you can find by browsing Mozilla's tax forms. I am merely stating it. Mozilla is paid by a lot of regional search engines. It's just that payout is much smaller than google's.
Re: (Score:3)
They could start selling a Firefox Premium subscription with feature voting rights. If paying users become customers with decision power, rather than being the product Mozilla sells to Google, I'd gladly pay up to $24/year.
No more removing power user features? No more breaking the user interface? No more breaking add-ons? Including more power user features, more user interface customizability, more add-on features? With me voting for the features I want, the most feature requested by paying users winning an
Re: (Score:3)
Re:So, will the DOJ now pay Mozilla? (Score:4, Interesting)
They could start selling a Firefox Premium subscription with feature voting rights. If paying users become customers with decision power, rather than being the product Mozilla sells to Google, I'd gladly pay up to $24/year.
Agreed. I'd definitely pay that much, and possibly more, for an old-style Firefox where the usability of the UI hasn't been dicked into oblivion and where I can use Tab Mix Plus to make tabs not be the shit-show they currently are.
Maybe this will be a wake-up call for Mozilla. Without Google's teat in their mouth, maybe they'd go back to listening to users' feedback and stop making their browser suck more with each release. Maybe then they'd gain back some market share, and be able to make deals with search engines based on a position of strength instead of merely being camouflage to aid the continuation of Google's near-monopoly in the browser market.
Re:So, will the DOJ now pay Mozilla? (Score:4, Insightful)
Pretty much this. Maybe we can have Firefox stop trying to look like yet another Chrome Clone.
Re:So, will the DOJ now pay Mozilla? (Score:5, Interesting)
While I don't think that's the DOJ's fault, I do wonder if hurting Mozilla was part of the plan (maybe even from Google's side by allowing this loss). What's the outcome for Google? They save gobs and gobs of money immediately, while their biggest vendors (those they're paying to make Google the default search) will likely either stick with Google as the default for now, or will prompt users to pick a default and most will choose Google anyway. Meanwhile, they effectively cut a competitor (Mozilla) that has not signed on to their new plugin model - a model that will hurt ad blockers.
If Mozilla and Google want to maintain a similar relationship, they could mostly do it. Instead of paying to be the default, pay based on some other figure - like how many users they send over to Google (like ads do).
Re: (Score:2)
Keep Google and it's monopoly issues separate and distinct from Mozilla and its funding. Legally the court can't look the other way on illegal activity just because it means someone else loses money. Imagine this was the breakup of Standard Oil, and someone defended that monopoly by saying that local gas stations would lose money...
And in this case, only one search engine at a time could ever pay to be "exclusive".
How? (Score:3)
How is Mozilla not able to function for a long time with that money? They got half a billion dollars in one year and I would think other years they received similar amounts.
Re:How? (Score:4, Insightful)
Figure every programmer on staff is costing them $200K/year. Even the ones only making $80K/year.
Everyone above that is costing more.
Re: (Score:2)
Figure every programmer on staff is costing them $200K/year. Even the ones only making $80K/year.
The standard logic is that it costs about 40% on top of salary to add headcount.
Re: (Score:2)
They have more than enough money (Score:5, Insightful)
They had enough money that they can piss away $20M on Pocket.
How many developer hours would that have bought? They could have refactored some of their antique code with that money.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Mozilla has become a bloated activist bureaucracy that has a browser as a side project. Pocket was just another point of activism to "force this correct way of doing things" on people through their browser.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: They have more than enough money (Score:4, Interesting)
Before pocket, when we had the prior plug in model, we could use extensions that would save web pages as displayed to disk. For example, Scrapbook+, which still functions on Pale Moon. When Mozilla took away that functionality because it makes security hard and they are no good at that, they replaced it with Pocket which by default causes Firefox to phone home whenever you open a new tab and which also requires that you save pages on the cloud where they get to see what you're saving.
If you don't see how this is an information grab then there is no discussing privacy with you.
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't just security that killed the old add on system. It was terrible for performance and power consumption too.
Being able to patch core parts of the browser with random JavaScript you downloaded was a terrible idea.
Re: They have more than enough money (Score:2)
I was talking about a specific feature there.
Re: (Score:2)
>I've never used this 'pocket' thing, ever, and I'm not even sure what it does.
I've found it useful for holding my wallet, keys, phone, and handkerchief.
It forces thieves to up their game from "cutpurse" to "pickpocket".
unfortunately, I have yet to find a way to stick a primed mousetrap in it in a way that doesn't backfire, in a place to close to something that I don't want to catch that backfire . . .
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
My first thought was also to wonder what the hell a browser developer needs half a billion dollars a year for. Take away their Google funding and that's still clean over $80M per year they're working with.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yup. Now how much activism is under "program"?
Re: (Score:2)
To add to previous point, as a comparison the project that actually isn't a money maker on search engine and that has to survive on donations with no help from Mozilla that is Thunderbird is about 5-7% "general and administrative", and well over 80% personnel and computer & tech in their 2022 breakdown:
https://blog.thunderbird.net/f... [thunderbird.net]
Re: (Score:2)
They also own an ad-tech company since 2022.
Perhaps that's why Firefox 128 defaulted ad tracking to "on".
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile, 32-bit Firefox on Linux is unstable and crashes after a few minutes of light use (no streaming or social sites).
I can't see myself using any other browser but it's crap at this point and has been for years now.
Re: (Score:2)
Firefox on Android is tragic as well. It slows down more and more until it has to be restarted just to not choke on any content at all. And just unloading itself doesn't do it either for some reason, you have to swipe it off and then restart it.
Re: (Score:2)
Most likely that's the same memory leak that (more slowly) brings PCs to a halt if you run Firefox too long, but I have to keep one browser session open for weeks to make that happen on a PC. The tablet blocks up faster because it has only 3 GB of RAM, but it has a tendency to need a restart every week or so anyhow because both rotation and Wi-Fi eventually both stop working. So yes, Firefox does technically grind to a halt on my tablet, but not in a time frame that matters because I have to reboot more fre
Re: They have more than enough money (Score:2)
My phone has 4 GB and I rarely have to reboot for anything but an update, although I haven't had one of those in a while since this phone is a few years old.
$ uptime
13:37:59 up 41 days, 22:13, load average: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
Re: (Score:2)
The tablet forgets how to rotate after enough sleep cycles, and the WiFi will start dropping out. I assume the relevant sensors/radio aren't always well behaved coming out of sleep. Once they get timed out, they never come back unless I force a reboot. It also occasionally gets confused when I leave the range of its WiFi lifeline while it is asleep. It handles the loss of network connectivity just fine while awake. In any case, these eventually happen regardless of what apps I run, it's all about sleep cycl
Re: (Score:2)
They had enough money that they can piss away $20M on Pocket.
How many developer hours would that have bought? They could have refactored some of their antique code with that money.
And they are constantly begging people to donate money for Thunderbird development. What the fucking fuck. Google gives you half a billion dollars a year. That's 1.5 million dollars EVERY DAY. Free money that you can spend however you want. You can't throw a little of that over to the Thunderbird team?
Fucking Idiots.
How much money does Mozilla need? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do they need so much money and what do they spend it on? Mozilla is a non-profit right? How many developers does Mozilla need to develop and maintain Firefox and Thunderbird? Is half a dozen fairly well-paid developers, some web page designers, and cash for web hosting enough?
Mozilla used to do pretty amazing things with virtually nothing. Despite all the cash, Firefox has been in a pretty steady usage decline over the years. Maybe it's time to focus on their existing, core users' needs, rather than add features like pocket and vpn services? And can you fix thunderbird, please? After v115 it's really become garbage.
Re: (Score:2)
Mozilla dropped Thunderbird quite a while ago.
https://blog.thunderbird.net/2... [thunderbird.net]
They tried to obfuscate it by naming the new entity "MZLA Technologies Corporation", which is why many never noticed.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a wholly-owned subsidiarity of Mozilla still, so it's all under the same company ultimately. Without all this extra money, they can just bring it all back together as their core focus. Should be able to do it for a couple of measly million dollars a year.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting about those features. Exchange support is definitely something that held it back in the enterprise. I've tried many different mobile email apps but always come back to gmail.app because of search. Search sucks in all the other android email clients. Oddly enough I rarely use more than simple search on the desktop Thunderbird and it's enough. Maybe that's because I can see more at a time on the screen.
In the meantime, Thunderbird got really slow for some reason after the UI update. I don't c
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Mozilla dropped Thunderbird quite a while ago.
https://blog.thunderbird.net/2... [thunderbird.net]
They tried to obfuscate it by naming the new entity "MZLA Technologies Corporation", which is why many never noticed.
"As of today, the Thunderbird project will be operating from a new wholly owned subsidiary of the Mozilla Foundation,"
Re: (Score:2)
That isn't financed by Mozilla foundation, because it's a separate subsidiary. It's on its own. That was the point of separation.
This is why Thunderbird survives on donations:
https://blog.thunderbird.net/2... [thunderbird.net]
Re: (Score:2)
You say "survive" and then link to an article about Thunderbird thriving. The fact is, Thunderbird is expanding and hiring new people, they have the money for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Thunderbird "thriving" came after almost dying. They begged for for money for almost a year before people donated enough to carry them through.
You're like the idiot who looks at someone two years after a car crash after which that person spent several months in induced coma as surgeons desperately fought to save that person, and then laugh when someone tells you he barely survived by pointing out that he's fine today.
Re: How much money does Mozilla need? (Score:2)
I doubt that half a dozen well paid developers will be nearly enough. For one thing, JavaScript is far from being a stable language. Every new bell and whistle that they add and that web devs use risks breaking browsers that aren't kept up to date. And the same goes for OS updates (including Linux distros). Every time some library maintenance group is overrun by the latest religious fanatics (tabs vs spaces holy wars, I'm looking at you), it's all hands on deck to accommodate the shifting tides.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, modern software development really has become unsustainable, hasn't it.
Isn't the promise of Rust that we can do more faster and more securely? Wasn't Rust created by Mozilla developers? Show us how it should be done, guys!
Didn't know Javascript had a tabs vs spaces dogma debate. Surely a code re-formatter fixes that.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the real debate is what happens next when the programmer had an arguably good reason to deviate from consistent tabbing but some programmers are using spaces while others are using tabs of different sizes
Re: (Score:2)
For a continually updated product that runs on so many devices, they would have at least a hundred devs easy.
Re: (Score:2)
I know they say I should be embarrassed by it, but I am a proud Spaces Nationalist! It's what our great nation of computing was founded upon. When our forefathers came over on the ENIAC, they brought Spaces with them, rejecting the Tabs the heathen natives were using!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Mozilla used to do pretty amazing things with virtually nothing. Despite all the cash, Firefox has been in a pretty steady usage decline over the years.
Has it though? I see this claim a lot, but the world hasn't been static, the web gets progressively less safe and more unpleasant as time goes on, which puts a lot of pressure on browsers in various ways. Is Firefox of today plus the web of today worse than firefox of 2004 with the web of 2004? Yep.
But you can't go back to the web of 2004 and the firefox of
Re: (Score:2)
You missed the point. Mozilla paid $20m for pocket, and I cannot fathom why they did that or what it got them, except $20m spent a feature that only a few people use. They could have spent $20m on developers, building the interfaces and APIs that users want to customize the browser to their needs.
Re: (Score:2)
They collect information on usage habits both when people use it, and by default (where it shows up on the new tab page) every single time you open a tab.
Pocket is also actually inferior to what we had before in two important ways. You could use extensions which modified the page you were viewing (for example ad blocking, de-widthifying, whatever) and then use Scrapbook+ (or a couple of other extensions) to save the page as displayed to local disk. I do not want to save pages to the cloud. I want to save th
Re: (Score:2)
Pocket doesn't preclude that though.
I'm guessing some of those extensions never got completely rewritten for the new API.
Re: (Score:2)
Pocket doesn't preclude that though.
I'm guessing some of those extensions never got completely rewritten for the new API.
It's the opposite. The new API didn't get written for those extensions. It doesn't do all of the things the old one did.
Re: (Score:2)
That's got literally nothing to do with pocket though. The new API was created because they felt they had hit a wall with the old API, and in fairness none of the forks managed to solve the problems with the old API.
And they added a load to the new API as well. I run unlock, no script and privacy badge and all appear to be able to make changes to the page contents, so that's not precluded by the new API .
Re: (Score:2)
That's got literally nothing to do with pocket though.
No, that is false. Pocket is their excuse for why they think we don't need that functionality.
Re: (Score:2)
No, that is false. Pocket is their excuse for why they think we don't need that functionality.
[citation needed]
What are you actually saying? Page modifying extensions exist. Page saving extensions exist. All the things you have so far said extensions can't do are things extensions can do.
Re: (Score:2)
Page modifying extensions exist. Page saving extensions exist. All the things you have so far said extensions can't do are things extensions can do.
Show me a working pair of page modifying and page saving extensions, which save the page as displayed after modification.
Re: (Score:2)
You're really fucking lazy and obtuse.
DarkReader and SingleFile work fine together. It saves dark mode pages.
So literally everything you are whinging about is wrong. 1. It does work. and 2.this isn't some weird Mozilla/Pocket conspiracy. Go figure.
But I do love the idea that they have specifically knobbled features of the very, and increasingly, capable extension system just to push pocket. You need ot get out more.
Re: (Score:2)
DarkReader and SingleFile work fine together. It saves dark mode pages.
Great. Do you have any idea how many different combinations I tried after they made this change? None of them worked, even though lots of them claimed to.
You need ot get out more.
You need to eat my salty hot nuts.
Re: (Score:2)
. Do you have any idea how many different combinations I tried
Why should I give a fuck?
You claimed it DIDN'T work specifically because Mozilla is trying to push pocket.
This is factually false. There are extensions where it works. Ergo Mozilla are not blocking it. Ergo this isn't some moronic pocket related conspiracy.
No, it's just a case of your favorite extension authors not writing their extensions for you. That's a lot less fun than a Mozilla driven conspiracy to push pocket.
You need to eat my salty hot
Re: (Score:2)
We might argue whether having different engines is worthwhile (I think so) but the fact is that that alone is surely costing them many millions of $ a year.
Re: (Score:2)
They have both a foundation and a company.
Who will pay the CEO their hardly earned millions? (Score:2)
Or is it hard earned, I can never tell.
Re:Who will pay the CEO their hardly earned millio (Score:5, Insightful)
CEO is pennies, who will pay the activists in the bureaucracy? Nevermind millions, that's where hundreds of millions are going.
Mozilla could just drop the activist bureaucracy project and go back to making a web browser as their main thing, rather than a small side project serving as a shiny front for the shady backroom dealings. But that would require becoming a non-political entity again.
Mozilla (Score:4, Insightful)
Despite the hate predictably sent Mozilla's way by the anti-woke brigade, if Mozilla disappeared it would be a disaster. Firefox is the only credible alternative to Chrome that doesn't use the Chrome engine. Without Firefox, Google would have complete control over the Web and the pace of Web enshittification would increase exponentially.
Re: (Score:3)
I have to say: Firefox will do just fine without Mozilla.
In fact, perhaps better.
Re: (Score:3)
Even though Mozilla has somehow managed to do not much better than keeping Firefox limping along with a half-billion dollars per year, it wouldn't be easy to even keep Firefox where it is without a well-funded effort behind it, even the loss of marketing could take a couple percent out of Firefox's market share.
Re: (Score:2)
If that is really true about absolutely needing that $500m to keep Firefox limping along, then we are truly screwed and open source software development is finally dead.
Does Firefox even have 2% market share to lose anymore? I still use Firefox every day but I'm getting a bit tired of having to bend it to my will every update (mostly UI issues to make it fit into my desktop). Obviously Chrome is far more opinionated and doesn't bend at all, so I'm grateful to have Firefox, but I've been worried about its
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think it needs $500M+ per year to keep it limping along, but it is complex enough that it will need something bigger than most open-source projects and we can't be sure that would happen if Mozilla went away.
Re: (Score:2)
True, for about a decade at this point I've been telling people that the worst browser monopoly in history exists right now, with Chrome.
Re: (Score:2)
Others browsers can use what Chrome is based off: WebKit. My primary browsers on my laptop and phone are WebKit based and they work pretty well without hoarding RAM and draining my battery like Chrome tends to do.
Re: (Score:2)
You can also use Blink without Chromium. It is only more comfortable to use chromium and build the UI with HTML instead of Gtk or Qt.
Re: (Score:2)
Without Firefox, Google would have complete control over the Web and the pace of Web enshittification would increase exponentially.
Mozilla will not survive this. Their leadership is corrupt. They are not focused on a web browser, they are focused on something else entirely. What that is, I do not know. Many folks assume it is "activist" things. It does seem that the management there is infected with some sort of mindset like that.
Regardless, needs expand to fill the means. They will not be able to successfully transition from half a billion dollars a year to less than a 10th of a billion dollars per year. They will fail and Firefox wil
Re: (Score:2)
The Mosaic web browser is closely related to Netscape, Firefox, and Mozilla through a series of developments and transformations in the history of web browsers.
Mosaic to Netscape:
Mosaic was developed at the National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA) at the University of Illinois by Marc Andreessen and Jamie Zawinski in 1993. It was the first commercially available web browser and gained significant popularity.
Marc Andreessen, one of the co-developers of Mosaic, left NCSA and co-founded Mosaic Communications Corporation with Jim Clark in 1994. Due to conflicts with the University of Illinois over the use of the Mosaic name, the company was renamed Netscape Communications.
Netscape:
Netscape released its flagship browser, Netscape Navigator, in December 1994. Netscape Navigator was built on the foundations of Mosaic and introduced several innovative features, including progressive rendering of pages and images, which allowed text to be read before the entire page loaded.
Netscape Navigator became the dominant browser in the mid-1990s, but its success was short-lived due to competition from Microsoft's Internet Explorer.
Netscape to Mozilla:
In 1998, Netscape released the source code of its browser under an open-source license, leading to the creation of the Mozilla project. The Mozilla project aimed to continue the development of Netscape's browser technology in an open-source environment.
The Mozilla project eventually led to the development of Mozilla Firefox, which was released in 2002. Firefox was built on the Gecko layout engine developed by Netscape and became a popular alternative to Internet Explorer.
Mozilla and Firefox:
Mozilla Firefox is the direct descendant of Netscape Navigator and the Mozilla project. It has continued to evolve and remains one of the major web browsers today, known for its speed, security, and customization options.
In summary, Mosaic laid the groundwork for Netscape, which in turn led to the creation of Mozilla and eventually Firefox. This lineage reflects the continuous evolution and innovation in web browser technology over the years.
Re: (Score:2)
Since you invoked Jamie Zawinski...
Mozilla's Original Sin [jwz.org]
I'm willing to sacrifice Mozilla (Score:2)
in the name of breaking up Google's obscene monopoly.
Mozilla's ties to Google aren't healthy anyway. It's high time they became independent - or die, if it comes to that: I don't know what will happen next if Mozilla disappears, but one problem at a time, and the most urgent one right now is reining in Google.
Re: (Score:2)
google already is pushing around the web too much; if they dominate browsers further that will also be a problem.
That said, Mozilla will still get money for defaults in some way. Encryption certs may become necessary and expensive again...
Manifest V3 (Score:3)
When people's ad-blockers no longer work when Chrome moves to Mv3, I think that Firefox will become a much more attractive browser....
the important thing.. (Score:4, Funny)
...to consider is that who will suffer the most from the lost bribes
So is this the potential takeaway from this: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Understand that Mozilla doesnt get to use its own layout engine on Apple stuff. Hard to imagine not allowing Google into the default search there as being all that meaningful given that the whole platform is already fundamentally anti-choice at a far deeper level.
The only relevant platforms are desktop and thats no longer a growing market at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most things now have a smartphone app. Some things only have a smartphone app.
Well I guess I'm going to be one of the ones left behind then, because I still don't have a smartphone and have no intention of ever owning one. /s
Of course I don't think you're correct, neither do I think I'm alone.
There's a Plan B with deep pockets (Score:3)
"Welcome to Bingzilla"
Re: (Score:2)
Addendum: a cool feature could be searching on multiple search engines at the same time and each result set opens in a different tab. Extra points if side-by-side panels. Because their algorithms are different, often their results are complimentary. I often find stuff in Bing that doesn't appear on Google (except maybe after 30 pages down). DuckDuckGo could be one of the tabs also.
Re: (Score:2)
At least in the United States, DuckDuckGo is already mostly a Bing proxy.
Dogpile tried this metasearch thing back in 1999 or so. I seem to remember the major search engines were blocking metasearch sites as a terms of service violation because there was no way to ensure display of search ads.
speculative fiction (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When did Slashdot start greenlighting speculative fiction and fear mongering instead of news?
I see that you are new here.
What is Mozilla actually paid for? (Score:2)
For shipping Google as the default search engine? Highly doubtful with such a miserable market share. What do they get money from Google for that we don't know about?
Re: (Score:2)
I think they may have put in the agreement a while ago when Firefox had meaningful market share.
Re: (Score:2)
It was a foolish move on Google's part, really, and would be much more so today. One of the primary reasons for people using Firefox now is that they want as little to do with Google as possible. All of those people are going to change that default browser setting instantly.
Re: (Score:2)
Unlikely (Score:2)
If the Google engine is the only major engine left, Google will have to face so much regulation, that they throw their money at anyone who wants to build an alternative browser without expecting more than some pseudo-competition.
Only losers are the ... (Score:2)
CxO rank and its board members who are all overpaid and highly ineffectual in ther role of ensuring an independent web browser.
This should breath a new life into Mozilla and rehiring of crucial programmers that the last few CEOs have totally neglected.
I'd say, "do it!"
A survey on browser features from Mozilla. (Score:2)
https://qsurvey.mozilla.com/s3... [mozilla.com] from https://connect.mozilla.org/t5... [mozilla.org] from https://www.reddit.com/r/firef... [reddit.com]. It ends this Friday at 2 PM PDT/5 PM EDT. Let's do it, Firefox fans!
Is Firefox really the loser (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
"Becoming"? What is this, 2010?
Re: (Score:2)
dumpster fire might be a bit extreme. it's been my daily for years and years.
For me it's the plugins. NoScript or an equivalent is an absolute requirement for me. uBlock Origin has made YT watchable again.
Does any other browser for windows not made by Google have such? I've heard LibreWolf supports the plugins so might try that, but mostly FF just works so I'll be here a while.
Re: (Score:2)
Ummm, we already do, its called Firefox.
Re: (Score:2)