Hacker News Reader

Comment by soapdog | Hacker News Reader

I use firefox because I believe in the work of Mozilla foundation. Chrome, IE, Safari are all company products and those companies objective are tuned to increasing their stock value. Yes, they make very good products but Mozilla makes a good philosophy and I trust them to value privacy, quality and open source. Firefox might be slower than chrome and not that beautiful but it is made with a mindset that is similar to mine.

This may sound too political for a software choice decision but hey, I LIKE MOZILLA FOUNDATION and their products.

View on HN

Same here. Particularly since Chrome's stripped-down approach has given way to bundled cruft and the competition has pushed Mozilla to improve dramatically.

So I'm glad Chrome exists and I hope it continues to do so, but they're not moving in a direction that remotely interests me.

I have to agree with this since Mozilla is an organization that defends users' rights on the web. Firefox is just as fast or faster than Chrome in certain testing so try it out without heavy addons (like firebug) and try it with a fresh profile.

In any case competition is good. I don't think we'd benefit from a purely trident or webkit or gecko world.

The problem is, it's pretty useless without Firebug compared to Chrome, at least for me -- much of my browser use is for web development. (this may change with the built-in debug tools set for Firefox 10.0 -- let us hope)

I'm also a bit perturbed by the fact that Mozilla has always touted extensions as a key feature of Firefox... only to say you should disable them all if you want good performance.

A big part of the built-in tools isn't to replace Firebug. It's to provide APIs for Firebug (and other addons!) to be able to do what they do even better.

Addons are loading arbitrary code into your browser though, so there is a potential for perf impact. We're looking at that too, with out-of-process addons (see https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/developers/docs/sdk/1.3/dev...).

Addons don't in general hurt perf, but it is definitely possible for them to. Firebug, in particular, disables the JIT so it can debug it, making Javascript execution painfully slow, and thus the browser is slow too, since large parts are written in JS. Firebug isn't to blame though; we just haven't provided them with APIs to do better yet.

85% of Mozilla's revenue comes from Google.

http://techcrunch.com/2008/08/28/mozilla-extends-lucrative-d...

Your point being? From your own post:

“We develop our product and technical direction as part of an open process unrelated to the search relationship with Google. We talk to Google about the parts of the product that offer Google services (i.e., the Firefox Start Page) and the services they provide, like anti-phishing. Otherwise Google does not have any special relationship to Mozilla project activities.”

Sure, in 2008. But what about now?

It's still the case now, but see gcp's point above for why it's not important.

Agreed. On the other hand, popularity of Chrome helps Mozilla not to relax and to push forward.

> Firefox might be slower than chrome

Firefox 8.0.1 is really fast now it's 8.0.1 that's the best update they have done.

Same here. It's also a big reason why I use Debian.

I assume you never buy anything from a company. It pointless to try to prop up products despite it being worse. Open source project will not success in the long run unless it is better. Firefox being better at protecting privacy is a reason to use it, but thinking Mozilla values privacy because it is a non profit is not a great reason.

I assume you never buy anything from a company

You can certainly do business with companies, while showing preference for an organization that shares your values whenever such an organization exists.

but thinking Mozilla values privacy because it is a non profit is not a great reason.

I think it is more that some people (including me) think Mozilla values privacy because they flat out say they do and then they have a consistent track record of supporting privacy. The fact they are non-profit does make it slightly easier to take their statements at face value, but it is their track record that really demonstrates it.

Firefox's track record in regard to privacy is a great reason to use. What I don't like is the support of products based on vague values that can't be tested. What does it really mean that Mozilla only cares about the web and not profits? This is a silly as using Android because it is "open". The way google uss open is kind of meaningless.

Of course I buy things from companies. I just say that corporate agenda from Google (selling ads), Apple (selling an aesthetically and technological experience) and Microsoft (simply money) is different than the Mozilla foundation objective which is the betterment of the Web. Mozilla does not value privacy because it is a non-profit but because it is an extremely open non-profit, you can have access to all the code, meeting notes, decisions and thus know for sure where it is going. Firefox might not be fashionable anymore and the cool kids might be on chrome but it still the product that value my values, and that is enough.

Values are a feature of a product just like any other. Of course a product can compete on values.

You can advertise the values of the company but if you do then those values better show up in the product. If the values don't, then what is the point?

You can advertise the features of a product, but if you do then those features better show up in the product. If the features don't, then what's the point?

"but thinking Mozilla values privacy because it is a non profit is not a great reason."

Mozilla's entire business model isn't based around getting to know you or you habits better. Google has an inherent and fundamental financial interest in being able to follow what you do browsing day to day.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com