Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New Search Strategy for Firefox

blog.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 352 posts

Re: New Search Strategy for Firefox

#341

Post by dragonwriter »

fwenzel wrote: post #340
gorhill wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the clarification, I wasn't aware there was a for-profit subsidiary.

Technically, a not-for-profit taxable subsidiary. (That makes a difference because the company purpose of Mozilla Corporation is still not to make money/raise shareholder value, despite the fact this it is fully taxable like any other company).

Isn't the purpose of Mozilla Corporation exactly to make money which inures to the benefit of its sole shareholder (Mozilla Foundation), making it just like any for-profit company except that it happens to be owned by a nonprofit?

Re: New Search Strategy for Firefox

#342

Post by fwenzel »

MichaelGG wrote: post #259
ngokevin wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was a strong option in place from Google, but Mozilla decided not to go with them as a global default in order to promote choice.

If Mozilla wanted to promote choice, why not present the user with an option of some sort? I fail to see how picking s default provider counts as "choice".

We do and have offered the ability to choose your search provider freely for years, and that is not going to change.

Re: New Search Strategy for Firefox

#343

Post by ksk »

haberman wrote: post #136
bad_user wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Every intermediate layer that Google does not control is a risk to their business. Every intermediate layer that Google does control is also an opportunity for lock-in. Which is seriously starting to piss me off, as they are increasingly turning their back on open standards.

As a Googler who cares very much about open standards, I don't think that assessment is fair or accurate.

So.. can I migrate to another search engine by taking all of my personal data that Google has collected on me? Well, you should know that you work for a marketing company that inserts itself between content other people create, and users that want to access it and then exacts a toll in the form of personal data. The entirety of Google's revenue is about lock-in and proprietary code and APIs. The advertising-enabled anti-privacy web that Google has enabled is frankly quite unappealing.

Re: New Search Strategy for Firefox

#344

Post by MichaelGG »

fwenzel wrote: post #342
MichaelGG wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Mozilla wanted to promote choice, why not present the user with an option of some sort? I fail to see how picking s default provider counts as "choice".

We do and have offered the ability to choose your search provider freely for years, and that is not going to change.

But the choice isn't by default. Users must go explicitly choose. If Mozilla wanted to "promote choice", they'd prompt the user to pick a search engine on first use. Or use a default and make noise about changing. Like how FF reminds you about your rights, or asks to join customer feedback program.

I don't see how Yahoo promotes choice over Google, unless by choice you mean promote competition by going against the market leader. Which is fine, and I dislike Google, so good on y'all. But I don't get the point if euphemisms.

Re: New Search Strategy for Firefox

#345

Post by netheril96 »

stephenr wrote: post #326
netheril96 wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If people down-vote you, your words will have the connotation that they do it because that they are Google fanboys, rather than have a reasonable argument against your opinion. That is why such wording is not conductive to discussion.

The idea of down voting comments you disagree with is ridiculous anyway. If you have a counter argument, reply. Down voting a comment (which leads to it effectively disappearing) is the electronic equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling "la la la I'm not listening" because you don't like what someone else said. If someone posts a comment saying "I like chocolate ice cream" in a discussion about a…

Fair enough. Then I rephrase. Your words carry the connotation that any one who down-votes you is a Google fanboy, rather than have any valid reason permitted by the HN guidelines (whatever that may be). That is why such wording is not conductive to discussion.

And for the record, I don't have any opinion about this XMPP /Google thing. I don't even know what XMPP is, so I am perfectly neutral here.

Re: New Search Strategy for Firefox

#346

Post by alttab »

Curmudgel wrote: post #339
alttab wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or you know, use Chrome. That way, I don't have to consider what type of "web browsing experience" I need to have today.

I have installed lots of extensions on FF because I find them to be useful. If I were to use Chrome as my primary browser and wanted the same features that my current FF setup gives me, then I would have to install extensions. But the extensions would slow Chrome down and then I would be back to square one. So "just use Chrome" is not a solution.

Maybe not for everyone. I find myself alone amongst many because I hate tools. The need for a tool means there is some problem that has to be solved. For instance, I much prefer languages that don't necessitate an IDE. I'd much rather program in Ruby, Python, Javascript, or anything else I can do competently in vi, with a 5 line .vimrc file. Even when in vi I only use like 5 commands. I find other ways to be effective. I can boot up Eclipse or IntelliJ or whatever and get the job done, but certainly there has to be a better way?

I installed Chrome because its fast. I liked it for web development because it had "Firebug" essentially built in. I eventually peeked back at Firefox to see if was doing anything interesting on the development side, but by that point much preferred the overall speed and simplicity of Chrome that I simply haven't bothered to go back.

Compared to IE, developing for both platforms rarely requires you to even check Firefox for correctness or performance once you get around the quirks or use more recently developed JS libraries.

I think the only extension I installed for Chrome was TamperMonkey. And a couple of things developed for work purposes.

Re: New Search Strategy for Firefox

#347

Post by inikulin »

Grue3 wrote: post #331
inikulin wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm completely against current behavior of the russian government and I use Google on daily basis. However, I can't see how Yandex should be considered to be the company "that practice large-scale censorship, they are instruments of repressive regimes"? This is a great company, which contributes both to open source and science (numerous collaborations with CERN, etc.). And it really tries to fight for the web freedom…

Because Yandex is based in Russia, it has no alternative but to share its data with the government. If you value your privacy, avoid using any Russian-based search engines or social networks if you live in Russia.

> If you value your privacy, avoid using any Russian-based search engines or social networks if you live in Russia

Pushing this forward, if you so much value your privacy you should not use any service which has official representatives (official company behind it), because in many countries they should provide user data on goverment requests (e.g. http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/RU...). This is a disturbing fact, but this is how modern society works. You should throw out the window all your electronic devices and move somethere to the North Pole to protect your privacy (and I can't guarantee that satellite will not watching you). "Privacy" nowadays is just a huge illusion which is an euphemism for the statement: "Somehow, you can be sure they will not come for you for what you doing. For now...".

Re: New Search Strategy for Firefox

#348

Post by dhimes »

netheril96 wrote: post #316
dhimes wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For simple pages Chrome was faster. But the tradeoff was that you didn't get things like MathML- which was important to- maybe- three of us. And iirc, SVG was better on FF (I did physics tutorial and animation stuff- I told people to use FF). Also, I still prefer video on FF. Chrome is choppier with a lousy connection or hardware. But Chrome is quicker to load a simple site which makes it overall a better experience…

I was one of the users who thought MathML was important. Until I don't. MathML itself is a terrible idea as no one can write a formula like that. Most mathematicians and physicists are already familiar with LaTeX, but the standards body have to invent an much more verbose language that only machines can read. I'm happy with MathJax.

MathML was important, because the only alternative was webEQ or other things that turned the equations into pictures.

I would write equations in the openoffice equation editor and run an awk script on them. Tedious, but I'm not repulsed by such things.

Re: New Search Strategy for Firefox

#349

Post by stephenr »

haberman wrote: post #336
yellowapple wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How old a particular standard is doesn't really have that much bearing on whether or not it's a good standard (if it were, then it shouldn't be long before we all switch away from HTTP and SSH for the sake of "innovation"). Nor is age an excuse for introducing a replacement that's locked down to a specific vendor. I'm fine with Google dropping their support for open standards - their services, their rules, and if the…

> if it were, then it shouldn't be long before we all switch away from HTTP and SSH for the sake of "innovation" Not great examples. HTTP has evolved several times to address changing needs: HTTP 0.9 (1991), HTTP 1.0 (1996), HTTP 1.1 (1997), HTTP 1.1 again (2007) and HTTP 2.0 (targeted for 2014). So did SSH: SSH-1 (1995) SSH-2 (2006). These evolutions were possible because there were multiple major players that could…

Just like HTTP, XMPP has evolved, with earlier RFC's being superseded by more recent ones.

Extensibility is a built in part of the XMPP standard, and Google have already made several extensions related to Google Talk etc.

Using XMPP provides a much greater possibility of interoperability, as several other major "modern" IM networks use their own non-federated XMPP network. WhatsApp, Facebook Chat, etc. It's much more likely that two non-federated XMPP networks will become federated, than two binary incompatible networks both becoming binary compatible AND supporting federation.

Re: New Search Strategy for Firefox

#350

Post by zobzu »

gcp wrote: post #273
zobzu wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given his comment i can say he works for Mozilla or worked for Mozilla or have good contacts there. What he wrote is 100% truth as far as I'm concerned. (i have good friends at Mozilla myself and that echo their exact words from 3 y ago)

Funnily there's noone who actually can be verified as a Mozillian to back it up, heh. Would be hard given that it contains several nonsensical statements. Why on earth would Google care whether Mozilla is profitable? Are there really a lot of people that thought Firefox OS would generate significant income in one of the most competitive markets so fast (I'm sure some people wished, but realistically)? And you honestl…

You'll notice my own account isnt throw away.
Post reply on HN