Firefox 3.5

4sysops - Why Firefox 3.5 doesn’t rock, and about the childish obsession with browser performance

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 17:37:57 GMT

Pingback from 4sysops - Why Firefox 3.5 doesn’t rock, and about the childish obsession with browser performance

re: Firefox 3.5

tayme — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 20:01:05 GMT

@mikegalos - I placed your missing "/" in and found the document from 2003. You are right and I am wrong about the use of the term "Charitable Trust". Not being a lawyer, it appears to me that they meet the requirements to use the terms that they use. It is your state, in their infinite and liberal wisdom that approved the formation of the Charitable Trust.

--tayme

re: Firefox 3.5

tayme — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 19:35:41 GMT

@mikegalos - By goals list do you mean the following:

"We are helping make the Internet a place...

where you and your neighbors build the world you want.

that generates not only economic value, but also civic and social value.

that is optimized for multiple languages and locales.

that is trustworthy and has minimal risk for users."

If so, I do not see anything that makes them a charity...As for your other link...it is not working, the formatting did not copy/past correctly into you post and it appears that part of the URL is missing, as I get a 404 if I copy/paste it into IE.

--tayme

re: Firefox 3.5

shark47 — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 19:31:34 GMT

"Google "donates" between 50 abd 65 million a year to FF/Moz and receives a tax credit and FF/Moz gets to operate as a not for profit charity."

Does that really happen? Because that sounds extremely shady.

re: Firefox 3.5

shark47 — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 19:28:33 GMT

"Are you referring to the feature to select 'Wikipedia' as the search engine from the browser search option drop box, and then specifying your search query? If so, that is supported in both IE8 as well as Firefox 3.x, right?"

Yes, but I like the way IE8 handles it. I search for, say, "Michael Jackson" and Google is my default engine. It shows suggestions in the dropdown and an option to change the search provider. When I click on Wikipedia, it shows suggestions pertinent to Wiki. Clicking on one of the links it brings up takes me right to the page. I am probably not explaining it all that well, but I love the feature.

re: Firefox 3.5

Dude1313 — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 19:19:11 GMT

lketchum said:

"Xbox is profitable"

************

Really? Please provide documentation as to this statement. Because last anyone knew only the Wii was making a profit on the hardware side.

re: Firefox 3.5

Dude1313 — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 19:16:57 GMT

The real questions is does anyone (especially the public) care who funds Mozilla? <insert sounds of crickets and or apathetic public here>, oh that's right Google is evil and MS good, if that works for ya run with it I guess.

Balthazar has hit the nail squarely on the head, IE6 anyone? Because if Firefox did not come along when it did that is what we would be stuck with.

Next, why the harping on Ad-Block? Suffice to say it makes browsing the web that much better. I have yet to see why Ad Block is bad. Maybe because it wont/can't (what have you) be released for IE? I'm guess that if it was available for IE it would be the best plug-in ever..

Try IE8? Turn and look in the mirror as to why there is no longer IE on the Mac. Last I looked MS canceled it in a huff because Apple developed Safari, how dare they???? Of course its probably because Apple's market share is so small not matter??? Which is interesting if they are so small not to matter, so non-innovative then why bother calling them out?

Lastly, the desktop browser war is one of a long slow retreat, every quarter that goes by IE slips while others gain. The browser space is a completely different animal and one that is anyone's game to win and one that is fairly level in terms of the playing field. Lets see who wins, the consumer has already spoken in the DAP market, lets see what they say in smartphones.

Either way it will be interesting to watch as will be the commentary that is sure to ensue.

re: Firefox 3.5

RaaJ — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 19:16:42 GMT

Shark:

Are you referring to the feature to select 'Wikipedia' as the search engine from the browser search option drop box, and then specifying your search query? If so, that is supported in both IE8 as well as Firefox 3.x, right? You don't need to set Wikipedia as your default search engine, or use Google first and then go to the Wikipedia link returned in the results.

Am I missing something?

re: Firefox 3.5

lketchum — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 19:14:48 GMT

Sheesh... it ain't hard...

Server and tools is and has been a profit center for some time.

Exchange alone joined the Billion dollar club on its own some time ago.

SharePoint is in the same club as is SQL Server.

These are all "servers" not Office and or Client, or even server OSes.

The company, as it must, reports a clear breakdown of its profits and where they apply, losses.

Xbox is profitable and enjoys the highest attach rate the industry has ever seen and as it expands into more and more factes, the revenue will only increase.

For the record, too, MS reports their client division apart from their business division (office) and these are apart from the server and tools div, which I pointed out above. As it stands now, all but online generate profits, and online was impacted most by larger investments hitting that operating unit's P&L - for example, the aQuantive buy resulted in a chare of 6 billion and yet that div only lost ~280 mil as compared to after tax profits of more than 4.2 billion.

The differences between MS and Google/FF/Moz are clear and huge.

MS operates divisions made up of operating units - each with a P&L contributing to their consolidated accounting and reporting model/requirements. So long as they report accurately, they are free to invest as they see fit.

Google "donates" between 50 abd 65 million a year to FF/Moz and receives a tax credit and FF/Moz gets to operate as a not for profit charity. It's a Myth and Google benefits most directly from the relationship it is paying for. Frankly, FF/Moz are underpaid - given search defaults and FF's presence in global markets. It makes me wonder what non-cash contributions make their way over to the "Foundation" and how they are reported. I am sure the information is out there, just as it is for Microsoft. I am not sure our press has any interest in looking into it - they're too busy riding the same ad supported train. That will end and quiker than you might think.

re: Firefox 3.5

shark47 — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 18:56:54 GMT

"Call me crazy, but with IE, I use that function onece per new install of an OS. I switch it to Google and I am done. "

Well, I don't. I don't want to Google (or Bing) something and then go to the Wikipedia page from there, when I can do it so easily from IE itself (without having wiki as my default search).

re: Firefox 3.5

mikegalos@msn.com — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 18:56:06 GMT

tayme

Yes, I understand the difference. Now, the question is why you think Mozilla Foundation is not pretending to be a charity when their own site lists their goals as charitable in nature and they are registered as a CHARITABLE TRUST.

For example, see their goals list at: www.mozilla.org/foundation

Or, to be VERY specific, see their "California registration by the Mozilla Foundation as a charitable trust" at www.mozilla.org/foundationdocuments/mf-ca-ct-registration.pdf (Warning: PDF file link)

re: Firefox 3.5

tayme — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 18:43:54 GMT

@mikegalos - Since you continue to use the word "charity" to describe the Mozilla Foundation, I assume that you do not realize the difference between a charity and a non-profit corporation. You should Google the terms (or use Bing if you prefer; personally I prefer to use Yahoo).

--tayme

re: Firefox 3.5

mikegalos@msn.com — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 18:26:21 GMT

tayme

"So far, I have seen a lot of discussion about Google funding Firefox...with no supporting documentation..."

I'd suggest you Bing (or use Google if you prefer) the phrase

Google AND "Mozilla Foundation"

and you'll find plenty of documentation from a wide enough range of sources and years to make it likely you'll find some you trust. It's both common knowledge and not disputed that most of Mozilla Foundation's budget has come from their Google contracts for years.

re: Firefox 3.5

mikegalos@msn.com — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 18:20:47 GMT

chuck

You're, once again, skipping the main point. There's no problem with Google funding Chrome. The problem is with Google providing the overwhelming majority of the "Mozilla Foundation" budget while Mozilla pretends they're an independent charity. And that problem isn't with Google buying yet another company, it's with Mozilla "Foundation" allowing themselves to be owned while pretending they're not.

As for Microsoft divisions, the question you raised was "In fact, EVERY Microsoft product (nearly) is subsidized by those two legacy cash cows." as a response to Firefox being subsidized. Now that you've looked at it you're changing the statement to "a few Microsoft groups aren't profitable and most don't make as much money as Office and Windows" which is a VERY different statement.

And, again, you are missing the two actual issues:

1) There's no question that Microsoft pays for the development of Microsoft products. It's in no possible way equally obvious that Google Corporation is the one actually paying for Mozilla Foundation's Firefox.

2) Microsoft's groups that aren't profitable don't list themselves as independent non-profit organizations working for the common good while ask for charitable contributions. For that matter, neither do most of Google's other unprofitable projects.

re: Firefox 3.5

RaaJ — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 17:44:50 GMT

Err.. Chuck! Whatever happened to Google's public proclamation that they developed Chrome to provide the best experience with Google owned Web properties like Docs, Maps, etc.? Whatever happened to Apple's slight of hand in foisting unoptimized abomination like iTunes and/or Quicktime on Windows users, while they somehow magically provide better experience on a Mac.

Of course, ONLY Microsoft should not be allowed to optimize THEIR products [IE, SharePoint, OWA, etc.] to work better with products THEY develop and can control the fate of.

Google 'does no evil' and 'can do no evil.', while all is fruity with Apple. Right!