Mozilla Ditches Firefox's New-Tab Monetization Plans 195
hypnosec writes "Mozilla has ditched Firefox's new-tab monetization plans because they 'didn't go over well' with the community. Johnathan Nightingale, Mozilla's VP of Firefox, said much of Firefox's community was worried Mozilla would 'turn Firefox into a mess of logos sold to the highest bidder' and that users wouldn't have control over this or see any actual benefit. 'That's not going to happen. That's not who we are at Mozilla.'"
That's not who we are at Mozilla (Score:3, Insightful)
laugh... but you would have gone ahead with it if you could have gotten it past the "community".
We need a new Firefox, someone "pure" again.
Re:That's not who we are at Mozilla (Score:5, Interesting)
Wouldn't a 'pure' Firefox also do away with the default search provider - which is effectively whoever bids highest for the position anyway?
I do think the 'new tab promotion' bit would have been bad, but mostly from a "what's next?" perspective. Otherwise, it would still be a page you can customize - including just deleting the promotional bits - that essentially has the promoted bits replaced as you browse, and if you really wanted to, never have to see more than once after installation as it is; and if you do, at least there will be some content there instead of vast emptiness. If it means Mozilla gets a bit more money, or at least money from a more diverse pool, I would have been fine with it.
Re:That's not who we are at Mozilla (Score:5, Insightful)
You can have a "default" just give the user a choice, if they want to use it or not.
That's my thing really, so tired of updates on my phone and computers that don't take how the user feels into consideration.
A perfect example is Windows 8, another would be Unity.
Let me leave my GUI the way it is while still getting security updates and feature sets (other than GUI features obviously) give *ME* the choice.
Re: (Score:3)
The way I read it, this wouldn't actually have affected you if you were already a user of FireFox; i.e. it would be for new users only. You would still have had the existing things with your most frequently visited sites in them. (depending on your version of firefox, that in itself might be new, I suppose).
Re:That's not who we are at Mozilla (Score:4, Insightful)
That's what the UX people said when Win8 previews came out with a registry key that could disable Metro.
That's what the UX people said when they took "tabs on bottom/top" with regards to the about:config preference that is no longer respected within Australis.
That's what the UX people said when they came up with /. Beta (just biding their time...)
That's what the UX people said when they destroyed Gmail.
That's what the UX people are saying when they talk about removing the URL from the Omnibar in Chrome.
When a UX person says they'll give you the option to disable their UX "innovation" with a preference setting, they're lying. They intend to remove that preference setting as quickly as possible.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't a 'pure' Firefox also do away with the default search provider - which is effectively whoever bids highest for the position anyway?
I do think the 'new tab promotion' bit would have been bad, but mostly from a "what's next?" perspective. Otherwise, it would still be a page you can customize - including just deleting the promotional bits - that essentially has the promoted bits replaced as you browse, and if you really wanted to, never have to see more than once after installation as it is; and if you do, at least there will be some content there instead of vast emptiness. If it means Mozilla gets a bit more money, or at least money from a more diverse pool, I would have been fine with it.
I suppose that Firefox could keep several extra tabs dynamically created, and they would serve as follows:
As you browse a website, the adverts would be directed to those tabs. You would have very few advertisements on the page you are browsing. The would also move the commercial stuff that Google presents in front of your search to a back tab. One tab for advertisements, and one for commercials. (Commercials are dynamic and fleeting, adverts are there for a much longer (until you clear them) time
My goodn
Re:That's not who we are at Mozilla (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I still use it because I have been using suite since Netscape Communicator days. I noticed many people hate the suite products due to bloatness. :(
Re: (Score:2)
political calculus on Internet Island (Score:3)
Firefox 3.x was the apogee of runaway heap allocations. With my usage pattern and plug-ins I was losing 600 MB per day on average. I would have six FF Windows open on half a dozen different desktops, each with 20 to 50 active tabs. When I decided to restart FF because it could no longer keep up with my typing in a textarea box, my session saver would restore
Re: (Score:2)
I hated the suite because it saved memory by running the browser and Mail and News in the same process, sharing the XUL and XPCOM runtime. This meant that whenever the browser crashed (about once an hour) it would take out your mail and any unsaved drafts. I didn't notice Firefox being faster, but I did notice that when it crashed it no longer killed my mail client. That was a huge advantage.
I'd not used any Mozilla browser for a few years, but I recently switched to Firefox for Android on my phone. Th
Re:That's not who we are at Mozilla (Score:4, Insightful)
Indeed! Australis (FF29 in general) has very nearly pinched my last nerve with Firefox. What the fuck is going on at Mozilla? The last two versions have run like complete and utter shit on my systems, from freezing windows to outright random crashes. What happened to my lightweight and reliable browser?
(Side tangent: Also, when will we get text reflow back in Android?)
Re:That's not who we are at Mozilla (Score:5, Interesting)
Indeed! Australis (FF29 in general) has very nearly pinched my last nerve with Firefox. What the fuck is going on at Mozilla? The last two versions have run like complete and utter shit on my systems, from freezing windows to outright random crashes. What happened to my lightweight and reliable browser? >
Pale Moon [palemoon.org]
Re: (Score:2)
More about Pale Moon (Score:5, Informative)
Pale Moon Windows version [palemoon.org]
Pale Moon Linux version [sourceforge.net]
Here are some of the advantages:
1) Pale Moon has a 64-bit version. Firefox doesn't. The 64-bit Pale Moon uses the Firefox add-ons; there are no problems except with some unusual add-ons.
2) The "Find in page" is better in Pale Moon. In Firefox the "Find in page" field is on the left of the screen and the "Highlight All" and "Match Case" buttons are on the right. In Pale Moon they are together so that you immediately see if something is chosen from a former search.
3) Pale Moon has backup software. Firefox has only Mozbackup [jasnapaka.com], which works well, but isn't Mozilla Foundation software.
4) Pale Moon is said to be more stable than Firefox. The memory-hogging flaws in Firefox are so widely acknowledged that there are add-ons for re-starting Firefox: Firefox Re-start Add-ons. [mozilla.org] I use Restartless Restart. [mozilla.org]
5) Pale Moon is completely independent of the forces that guide Firefox. Pale Moon is in no way associated with Mozilla Foundation. [palemoon.org] The Mozilla Foundation seems to feel forced to change Firefox in ways most users don't want.
Migration tool: Pale Moon has a profile migration tool [palemoon.org].
The Pale Moon FAQs help. (Score:2)
The Pale Moon site owner says that there have been considerable changes. See the Pale Moon FAQ [palemoon.org]. Here is a quote:
"As Pale Moon has developed, so has the amount of individual code for the browser, steadily diverting
Thanks for the info. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That means there are no 64-bit versions of Firefox for Windows available from Mozilla Foundation, which is what I said. Also, in the past, when I ran 32-bit versions of the Windows OS, opening lots of windows and tabs caused Firefox to crash when memory usage was enough to require swapping to disk. I've been hoping that a 64-bit version of Firefox would be different with a 64-bit version of Wi
Issue: Bad management at Mozilla Foundation (Score:2)
2) "Minor oddities in the UI do not make a drastic difference in how the feature works..." That misses an important point. Someone at Mozilla Foundation made a mistake. That in itself is not a big issue. What is a big issue is that there are numerous managerial and coding
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed! Australis (FF29 in general) has very nearly pinched my last nerve with Firefox. What the fuck is going on at Mozilla? The last two versions have run like complete and utter shit on my systems, from freezing windows to outright random crashes. What happened to my lightweight and reliable browser?
Maybe you're using a lot of add-ons. I'm on Fx 29 using nothing but NoScript and it works wonderfully.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm occationally using Ubuntu 14.04 and Firefox works just great for me on it. Sorry but I really think there's something wrong with your system. Try if for a while without any addons just for reference, and check about:crashes to see if you can get more details from it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You forgot the part where it doesn't completly close and you have to terminate the process before opening a new window. I've switched to QupZilla.
Re: (Score:2)
No I tried that. I'm not sure why I'm supposed to care about a browser. Is it like a puppy that will end up euthanized at the city shelter if I abandon it?
Classic Theme Restorer (Score:2)
Just install the Classic Theme Restorer [mozilla.org] extension. A bit of configuring and you have a better Firefox than either version 28 and Australis.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see the problem with it, myself. It would only have been for new users or new installs and minimal usage would have replaced the tiles with sites visited.
It's also a way for FF to reduce dependency on one big Sugar Daddy (Google) for its finances, which has got to be in FF's best interests, and therefore users best interests.
Re: (Score:1)
How do you know it isn't "Sugar Daddy" implementing it.
Re: (Score:2)
but you would have gone ahead with it if you could have gotten it past the "community".
Yes. He's saying that they listen to the community at Firefox and they're not the sort who will push things through if the community disagrees with it. If the community had not disagreed with it, then they would have gone ahead.
Re: (Score:2)
Someone obviously asked for it and came forward with the suggestion. It wasn't something that just materialized out of nowhere.
Re:That's not who we are at Mozilla (Score:5, Insightful)
The point is that Mozilla can't operate for free. If they could they would. If donations were enough to sustain them, why would they care? But the browser world is such that not even Opera could maintain their own browser engine, and they weren't a non-profit. Nobody seems to give a shit about Mozilla's needs, only their own. And when you dare to mention that, you're the bad guy for playing into the idea that "browsers cost money" and that "Mozilla should be trying harder to make money that everyone agrees is from ideologically flawless sources". And the worst part? The same users wouldn't donate to the cause if they had to, because they're too damn selfish and upset about tiny UI changes and bogeymen they think they're successfully evading by running Tor and NoScript.
In this kind of environment, you're guaranteed to get a Firefox that spends more time trying to find out how to make money than a Firefox that can fix its bugs and please everyone. You do it to yourself, Firefox users. That's why the vocal minority is beginning to be rejected with some things, and why the userbase is fragmenting and losing the more obnoxiously selfish users to forks that would go under the instant Mozilla went under.
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense. They've done fine for the last 10 years.
The only thing that's changes is they've started pursuing pie in the sky ideas about writing their own operating system than no one gives a toss about and other such stupidity.
It's their branching out into stupid side-projects, and implementation of large scale Firefox changes that the community doesn't even want that are the problem. Mozilla doesn't need more money, it needs better management.
They receive more than enough funds if they'd only stick to what
Re: (Score:2)
Australis has been generally well-received as far as I know. A few loud people here and there though didn't like the change.
Re: (Score:3)
Australis has been generally well-received as far as I know. A few loud people here and there though didn't like the change.
HAH! Classic Theme Restorer already has 150,000 users [mozilla.org], and that's just the people who had the time and inclination to download it. Who's to say how many others dislike Australis but just put up with it? Others have switched to Seamonkey, Pale Moon, or even the real Google Chrome.
No, Mozilla definitely seem pretty picky about when they want to listen to negative community feedback.
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't said anything about it here (until now), but Australis got me to switch to Pale Moon; it was pretty much the last straw, I guess, and rather than ranting online, I just went and found an alternative that I liked.
A note to the Australis designers... if I wanted to use Chrome, I'd just use Chrome.
On the plus side, I'm enjoying a less crashy 64-bit browser that works the way I want it to.
Re: (Score:3)
Good. Pure. Free.
Pick any two.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps Mozilla is too busy working on projects such as FireCEO and ensuring the "purity" of beliefs amongst its executives. There are only so many hours in a day, and so much progress to be done.
Re: (Score:1)
If we wanted a browser pushing us ads we'd be using Chrome.
Re:That's not who we are at Mozilla (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I just tried Chrome, and it looks almost fucking nothing like Firefox 29. Thanks for nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
Your thinking of Opera for the olden days.
Maybe Australis Next? (Score:1)
The new UI isn't going over well either; maybe they should ditch it, too. (I know some people like it - I wish they'd at least make it optional.)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I hate what they did with Australis, I nearly changed to Seamonkey, but classic-theme-restorer has put Firefox back the way I like it, I just hope it doesn't stop working.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-... [mozilla.org]
Is it just me or is Firefox going much slower with Version 29.0? (no-script + ghostery installed)
Re: (Score:2)
No problem here (Fx 29 + NoScript). The new look feel good so far; it is quicker to find everything and a traditional menubar is just an F10 away in case I need it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"What changed so much that you dislike?"
Tabs on top
The inability to put the url bar where I want it
The inability to put the search box where I want it
The removal of the status bar.
The fixing of navigation buttons so they cant be moved.
Overall - they took away the ability to customise a lot and it left my browser looking a hideous mess because their forced changes didn't work with my previous customisations.
Re: (Score:2)
Tabs on top
That's always made more sense to me. The URL bar is part of the tab - it relates to the contents of the tab, not the overall environment - so that's where it belongs. I thought 28 did it the same way, but maybe I misremembered.
The inability to put the url bar where I want it
The inability to put the search box where I want it
Not sure where you want either of these, but I hit the customize button in the pop-up thing to the right of the toolbar and it lets me move them around. Weirdly, it doesn't let me move the URL bar by dragging it, but it does let me move things to the left and right of it, so it jus
I ditched Firefox 'cause they're intolerant bigots (Score:3, Insightful)
And I'll never use it again.
Re:I ditched Firefox 'cause they're intolerant big (Score:5, Funny)
And I'll never use it again.
Now who's being intolerant?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So, just let me get this entirely straight. A man was hounded out of his job for not having the "correct" beliefs*, and when someone objects or defends his right to an opinion, he, too, is "intolerant" (and according to the downmodded post, a "closet homophobe)? This is your definition of tolerance?
Scratch a liberal or "advocacy group" and you see the same rotten core you saw in 1933.
And the terrible crime here is that the man contributed to a *successful*
Re:I ditched Firefox 'cause they're intolerant big (Score:5, Insightful)
More importantly, for contributing $1000 to a political campaign in favor of an amendment that explicitly attacked a segment of the populace, on top of repeatedly (and publicly) supporting congressmen who regularly express bigoted attitudes towards homosexuals [theguardian.com]. So yeah, he was given the lead position on Mozilla and people flipped their shit because he backed politicians that spew bullshit to demonize them.
No, this is the old "you must be tolerant of my intolerance" nonsense. No one has to sit back and accept being walked over, particularly when the basis for it is entirely hollow.
Wait, what? Is this an indirect Godwin?
What does it having been successful have to do with anything?
What are you referring to?
Re: (Score:1)
And I'll never use it again.
Now who's being intolerant?
The management of Firefox, that's who.
Boycotting Firefox is no more intolerant than boycotting Chic-fil-a because you don't like their policies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
They're "intolerant bigots" because CEO stepped down over public furor regarding him being... an intolerant bigot? No, your logic is broken.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I am sure the gay employees at mozilla have spent private funds supporting their politics, and I didn't see that new ceo hassling them for it, even if he disagrees. Who's the better person here?
Anyway, none of this should matter because work is not a place where you get to hang out with the people you want to hang out with. You're going to encounter people who have beliefs and lifestyles that differ from yours. You're all there to work, not to establish little gay (or christian, or athletic etc) cliques a
Re: (Score:2)
I am sure the gay employees at mozilla have spent private funds supporting their politics, and I didn't see that new ceo hassling them for it, even if he disagrees.
Can you really not see a difference between someone supporting equality and freedom for themselves and someone trying to limit another group's freedom?
You might as well argue that people who buy protective sportsware are the same as the ones who go around kicking people in the nuts.
Re: (Score:2)
Sending private funds to a specific political platform that isn't friendly to gay rights is NOT equal to using pro gay systemic bias to oust someone from a job. The litmus test is role reversal: If he got them ousted because they were gay, what would you think? Right. The left has manufactured a with us/against us culture around the protected castes in 'affirmative action' that is little different than the one neocons created around christianity. Both are reprehensible and detrimental to individual liber
Quit telling us what we want, 'kay? (Score:4, Insightful)
Or how about just not recommending anything to me? That too complicated a concept, or just not enough money in it?
Funny thing about the web - I get to decide where I go and what I see and when. Any attempts to circumvent that control, whether by obnoxious advertising or regional access controls or even hijacking my new blank tabs with anything other than a new blank tab, people will push back against. And people will succeed, because you ain't the only game in town - And yes, that includes Mozilla, it includes Google, it includes Microsoft. Give us what we want, not what you wish we wanted, or we will move on and leave you to die from prolonged irrelevance.
Re:Quit telling us what we want, 'kay? (Score:5, Insightful)
That too complicated a concept, or just not enough money in it?
Funny thing about the web - I get to decide where I go and what I see and when.
Fine, write your own browser.
Mozilla is facing their $300M/yr revenue stream from Google going away as of December. Perhaps you can offer and execute a better plan for continuing to provide a good, secure, public-interest browser?
Heaven forbid they sell some ads and give people the option to turn that off ... it's worse than kidnapping little girls, I tell you!
Mozilla, don't listen to the haters - do what you need to to keep Firefox & Thunderbird alive and libre.
Re:Quit telling us what we want, 'kay? (Score:4, Interesting)
If Google drops the ball, Microsoft will pick it up for the default search revenue. Mozilla also doesn't need the 300m/y for a public interest browser - they've got more products and experiments than you can shake a stick at and they're expanding into the mobile OS market which will likely result in tablet/pc market as well. They could pull back or eliminate duplication.
Why they need 11 offices globally is beyond me as well. Close down/consolidate the Vancouver, Portland, Auckland, Taipei, London, and Paris offices then open one in India and Brazil.
Re: (Score:3)
Or we could just, y'know, use Chromium/Iron or MSIE or even a dark-horse like Opera or Safari.
Personally, I still use FF on my PC, though the last ESR version, I don't piss around with their daily feature-breaking releases. But for mobile, FF's refusal to just port the desktop version has left it so badly broken and unconfigurable to behave better that I actually use the default Android browser over FF. I'd go with Chrome, but by some incomprehensible business decision, G
Re: (Score:3)
Netscape tried that game back in the 90's. It didn't work and over time led to the creation of the Mozilla project.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now, if they would just ditch... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Classic Theme Restorer add-on. Works well. Tabs underneath as I type this very message! https://addons.mozilla.org/en-... [mozilla.org]
Re: (Score:2)
My only problem with the new theme was the tabs on top and the status bar disappearing. Why are they so adamant about tabs on top anyway, who cares where we put them? For me I just prefer it that way. Classic theme restorer works well for this one feature. But that's two add-ons I have needed to restore functionality now. Will see what it does to performance.
Re: (Score:2)
Search engines bankroll Mozilla (Score:2)
Lets be honest, they reason they're not going ahead with this is because they are not desperate for cash, Google et al are paying Mozilla hundreds of millions literally for their search engine to be prominent (Yahoo is the top placed search engine for Android Firefox).
And if this was prominent instead, it could cost them a pretty penny.
Damn you firefox! (Score:2, Insightful)
If I wanted my fucking browser to look like Chrome, guess what? I woud've switched to Chrome a long time ago. Now I get an update today and it looks like crap.. sigh. Where's the 'don't touch my old fucking settings because i'm a hating curmudgeon' button, because I think its time for it.
Re:Damn you firefox! (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry, they kept the important parts. That being the fact that addons in Firefox are all powerful and can give you back everything you liked and hide all the new stuff [mozilla.org], something that's never been diminished.
Support this guy. (Score:2)
Donate to the dev of this extension! It's been said before that we shouldn't *need* an extension to restore UI sanity, but here we are, and this guy deserves support. (Yes, I donated)
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how much you'll cry when Mozilla finally goes under from having the dippiest and most self-entitled fanbase in history.
I don't expect that the GP will be still alive in 2015 AC (After Cataclysm),
Options (Score:2, Interesting)
This amazes me how companies can become so distorted in their thinking that it would make sense for them to think that this would fly. While I like and use Firefox they must understand that my intrinsic loyalty is nearly pure habit. I have switched browsers maybe 5 times and anticipate that I wil
I abandoned firefox (Score:1)
maybe when i get some new hardware and install a newer release of Linux i will give firefox another try, but until then i got to keep this
Re: (Score:2)
... and i notice now when i close firefox that artifacts stay in memory so if i relaunch firefox again a dialog pops up telling me firefox is already running.
Uh, it's not supposed to do that. That's an issue with your Firefox and a fresh install would probably fix it.
Re: (Score:2)
It does do that. When quitting a heavy session with lots of active/loaded tabs, just the task of exiting and releasing resources etc. can be quite long esp. if a lot of the process's memory resides in swap. Even when all UI windows are closed there's still a firefox process doing that work. At least it did that pre-29. In case like this you can watch it with top in a terminal window, look at the CPU use, and the "RES" memory use going down.
If you don't want to baby sit Firefox I can recommend the "Restartle
Re: (Score:2)
It does do that.
It doesn't happen to me. Maybe you're having issues just like Fudrucker. Same with the other posters above complaining about how the new version of Firefox got real slow when using x extension or y plugin -- don't blame the poor software writing for what are likely an individual system issue.
Re: (Score:2)
You probably won't ever notice if you use less than 100% of your memory and with a very fast CPU (like sandy bridge and up) there would be even less a reason to. If you're using something 150% of your physical memory (running a computer with 2GB or less and Firefox using well over 1GB) that's another story, it does take time to release resources when they are in hundreds of megabytes of swap.
Re: (Score:2)
Does it for me too, given that he said Linux and I use Windows I'd wager it's everything to do with Firefox and nothing to do with his system - we're not even using the same OS.
Nearing my wit's end with Firefox's bullshit (Score:2)
Reload/Stop Button Unmovable (Score:1)
almost there..... (Score:1)
Re:almost there..... (Score:5, Insightful)
It is different. That doesn't make it unusable. Seriously, the browser is not unusuable because the UI elements changed slightly.
Re: (Score:2)
But the browser becomes much more difficult to use if the UI elements change significantly every two weeks.
Re: (Score:2)
Last time it did a dramatic change was with 4.0 in 2011. That's hardly "every two weeks."
Easy to spot (Score:2)
Firefox / Mozilla support privacy, support them! (Score:3)
This is yet another reason that I'm a great fan of Firefox and Mozilla as a whole. Firefox (and Mozilla) remains the only major browser that has the user's privacy, functions, and security in mind; not to mention a great example of FOSS that is equally viable and usable to the neophyte as the guru. I'm glad that they backed off their latest endeavor in response to user worries, but we users need to figure out a palatable way to support Mozilla monetization soon!
Now personally, I didn't have a problem with the sponsored starting "quickslots" as I understood them. They only existed on a completely new install, were visibly marked as being sponsored, didn't send back any sort of user data or have other privacy issue, and vanished as soon as the user visited 9 web pages to take up all the "quick dial" slots with their own content! People being worried that it could bleed into something more is understandable, but we need to avoid lashing out at ANY monetization system, because we'll end up in a much worse state.
Like it or not, Mozilla needs funds to do what they do; acting the paragon of web virtue and privacy, having full time developers etc... isn't cheap. Especially in a market where the "bad guys' are offering "FREE SHINY SUPER CONVENIENCE FEATURE HEY LOOK AT THIS" at every turn, while simultaneously selling the user's data to the highest bidder (see: Google) , it is hard to offer a competing level of service and features with a better ethical bend; its even worse when the "bad guys" offer the biggest bucks (ie the reason that porn, faux antivirus sites, other dataminers and outright malware ads pay the most per click. On the other side, those like American health insurance companies, people search slime etc.. are willing to pay top dollar for your data if Google or whomever gathers it. Atop all of this, Google has to compete with "Joe User's" preferences. Though they do an excellent job bringing their support of an open web and privacy to light, Joe User still may like Chrome Widget A or Feature B, which is part of the reason that Firefox is trying to provide "Chrome UI styles" to those that want them in recent variants.
Ultimately, I want Mozilla to continue with its FOSS, openness, and privacy-focused mission and I am willing (and do) donate to the foundation in the hopes to help them do so. However, I know I am a minority - most people aren't going to donate and/or pay for a browser. If it is true that Firefox is going to lose a huge chunk of its revenue from including Google as one of its Search Bar default engines, they are going to have to make that up somehow. Honest and innocuous attempts to do so like the previous "quickdial sponsored starting pages" idea should likely be supported. Especially the tech and FOSS geek community shouldn't be rebuking any attempt for monetization, lest we end up with Mozilla either falling further and further behind as they don't have the money to keep up, or worse abandoning their principles to pay the bills. Instead, we need to be supporting Mozilla's attempts to make money that is still in line with their mission and our desires for openness, privacy, security and the like.
P.S. Despite being one of my favorite pieces of software, recently Thunderbird really needs some support too (especially, being able to detect the new Gmail Categories etc... that's something that the clout of Mozilla should be able to sit down with Google and work out a way to handle it) . Its sad that Mozilla hasn't the resources to invest in continuous improvements and have put the project on the back burner. We don't want to see this happen to Firefox too!
Re: (Score:2)
When I think privacy I certainly don't think Mozilla. These are the guys that support the advertising industry by parroting their bullshit excuses in refusing to let people opt in to do not track instead of defaulting them to opt out, or giving them a choice on install.
The only correct new tab content (Score:2)
about:blank
Over Management (Score:2)
That's about 950 too much. What the hell are they all doing over there? It just smells like a huge corruption scandal waiting to explode.
More than anything, it's over-management that's made Mozilla an elephant. It can probably explain FirefoxOS as well.
Article is misleading... (Score:2)
They don't say they're ditching the plan.
They say 'we will experiment.' meaning:
'bit by bit we're going to achieve our goal, just so slowly that you won't all notice at the same time'.
Good thing they still allow extentions (for now) (Score:2)
"Old default Image Style"
"Classic Theme Restorer"
All they do is restore previous behavior and give back features that have been taken away (like the statusbar). It's really sad that you now need extentions to get previous sane behavior back. And it's also a bit sad that the MemoryRestart extention is still a must since the memory leak problems that's been in Firefox since forever are still present and seem to get worse, not better, each release.
Re: Like the phoenix bird, let Fire Bird rise agai (Score:2, Funny)
[citation needed]
Re:Firefox is about money now (Score:5, Insightful)
Firefox has grown to the point were it is more about money than the users. Google's dominance was the first big shot across the bow of its mission. Now this and the continued Chromification of the UI.
So it is decision time. Abandon the mission or the money. Unfortunately, I've seen this movie before and I know how it ends.
Mission is still the same, regardless if you're on the train or not.
Time for a fork...
People have already done this long ago. Not a lot of poeple using them though. Turns out most people may actually like these changes.
Re: (Score:2)
"Turns out most people may actually like these changes."
They do? So why in the past 6 or 7 years has Firefox gone from just over 50% market share to less than 20%? Are you aware of some poll that has a fuck load of people saying "I like the changes in Firefox, I just wont use it because I'm scared of Foxes" or something?
Otherwise I don't think "most" means what you think it means, at under 20% marketshare, coupled with a loss of 30% the overwhelming majority of people obviously don't like Firefox much and a