Mozilla FireFox

[piqaboo]

Do you really meet people with that mindset or do you make them up? The folks I know who write using the open source code, write code for a living, or for fun. They just chose a code/system/whatever that has the functionality and integrity they wanted to work with (lack of licensing fees didnt hurt their capitalist choice none, for those earning a living at it).

[EJA]

Everywhere in the world there is greed and covetousness. These are characteristics of humans. In captilasm, the greed and covetousness of each member of the society is pitted against the greed and covetousness of all the other members. For the most part it balances out, maybe not perfectly, but remarkably well. In socialism, this balance is upset. Basically, everyone pretends that they are not greedy, so all the greed has to be done on the sly. Some people are slyer than others, and the slyest scum floats to the top of the socio-economic cesspool. In socialism, reward is proportional to slyness. At least in capitalism, reward is most of the time roughly proportional to effort. Why is that better? Because effort is productive for society, whereas slyness is destructive of society. Capitalism isn't a perfect system, but it's the best solution for an imperfect world. In a perfect world socialism might work, but a perfect world requires perfect people, and those are in rather short supply.

[OperaTenor]

Hi Serenity,

"XP" is Windows XP, which came after your Me. It utilizes "NT technology" which means(I think) the NT development group came up with it.

As for FX, it's probably as much personal preference as anything. Honest, I'm not trying to convert you to become a dreaded socialist.

Hi Ethan,

This is from the FX website:

"MOZILLA.ORG ANNOUNCES LAUNCH OF THE MOZILLA FOUNDATION
TO LEAD OPEN-SOURCE BROWSER EFFORTS
America Online Pledges $2 Million to Help Launch Independent Non-Profit
Industry Leaders Reaffirm Support for Mozilla

Mountain View, CA, July 15, 2003 – Mozilla.org, the organization that coordinates Mozilla open source development, today announced the launch of a new foundation that will continue to promote the development, distribution and adoption of the award-winning Mozilla standards-based web applications and core technologies, including the Gecko browser layout engine. The Mozilla Foundation will continue and expand on the efforts of mozilla.org, the group managing the daily operations of the Mozilla project since its inception.

"It has been a long-standing objective of the Mozilla team to create an independent organization so we can continue to lead and innovate," said Mitchell Baker, Chief Lizard Wrangler at mozilla.org, who will become President of The Mozilla Foundation. "We're grateful for the past and ongoing support of America Online, and we look forward to continuing to work with AOL over coming years. Mozilla was developed in an open source environment and built by harnessing the creative power of thousands of programmers on the Internet. Going forward, we will continue to partner with developers and industry leaders to keep content on the Web open."

Mozilla.org’s flagship product, Mozilla, is rapidly emerging as the most widely acclaimed web browser, with PC World’s July issue honoring it as “Best of 2003” in its category, LinuxJournal Magazine giving it an “Editor’s Choice Award” for “Best Web Browser” (July issue) and eWeek raving that “eWEEK Labs found the new features in Mozilla 1.4 ... to be remarkable improvements that enhance what was already the best browser option out there.” (July 1). The Guardian recently predicted that mozilla.org's upcoming new products “could make Microsoft's offerings look very shabby indeed” (July 10).

In addition, Mozilla is a cross-platform toolkit for developing Internet-based applications. By offering a set of components that can be used in a wide range of applications, are all open source, free of charge and have been tested through their use in Mozilla 1.4's end-user applications, Mozilla 1.4 enables developers to build applications for a cross-platform, network-centric world.

To help launch the new organization, America Online has pledged $2 million in cash to the Mozilla Foundation over the next two years. AOL will also contribute additional resources through equipment, domain names and trademarks, and related intellectual property, as well as providing some transitional assistance for key personnel as they move into the new organization.

Other industry leaders also offered their support to the new organization: Mitch Kapor, the new Chairman of the Mozilla Foundation, is making a personal contribution of $300,000, and Red Hat and Sun Microsystems are among the companies planning to continue their contributions to the Mozilla project.

“As an independent organization, the Mozilla project will have even more freedom to innovate and provide meaningful choice to users on all computer environments. A competitive, standards-compliant browser suite is vitally important to maintaining freedom and innovation on the Internet, so I’m delighted to make a contribution,” commented Kapor. Kapor was the designer of Lotus 1-2-3, the “killer application” that made personal computers ubiquitous in the business world in the 1980s. He currently chairs the Open Source Applications Foundation.

"PC World's recognition of Mozilla in its Best of 2003 is further proof that great software can be built using licenses that grant freedom instead of imposing onerous restrictions," said Michael Tiemann, Chief Technology Officer at Red Hat. "Mozilla has long been important to Red Hat, not only for the experience it offers or the features it implements, but because it extends our commitment to supporting W3C standards, interoperability, and choice in the marketplace. We are pleased to support the creation of the Mozilla Foundation, and will continue to devote engineering resources to increase the value of Mozilla over proprietary alternatives."

"Mozilla has consistently offered users the features, performance and innovation instrumental to the evolution of the Internet," said Curtis Sasaki, Vice President, Engineering, Desktop Solutions, Sun Microsystems. "Sun is committed to the Mozilla technology and is contributing significant engineering resources to move it forward. By the end of July, Sun will ship Mozilla for the Solaris Operating System and make Mozilla the standard browser for Mad Hatter, Sun's Linux-based desktop software stack, due later this year."

About mozilla.org and the Mozilla Foundation
Mozilla.org (http://www.mozilla.org) is the group that exists to make Mozilla a successful open source project. Mozilla.org provides open source Internet client software that includes a browser, mail and news functionality, and a toolkit for developing web-based applications. Mozilla.org was founded by Netscape Communications Corporation."

Internet socialists? Please.

At MS, they're called software developers, but at Mozilla they're instigators?!!

I have XP Pro with SP2, I dutifully have registered for automatic updates and get them, and most times I use IE6 I will pick up adware, spyware, or a virus(meaning the broad use of the term). I like the fact I can use a browser, while not perfect(and nothing is, as was said earlier), that doesn't need a fortress of bells and whistles to protect it and me from viruses, adware, etc.

Yes, I despise Microsoft. They sell mediocrity to the masses and claim it's the best that can be done, and their customer service is atrocious. As a result, I look for alternatives to MS products. I believe, based on my experience, that FX is a reliable alternative to IE. Dat's my OPINION.

Calling Mozilla "socialist", first, implies that socialism is bad, and second, that the organization is out to undermine free society with devious plots to overthrow capitalism.

As for socialism, I have a feeling there are a vast majority of people living in countries with socialist practices who would disagree with you, even in the face of the exorbitant taxes they pay(probably because they see more tangible return on their tax money spent).
As for socialism being bad, why is a government policy of each person contributing to the well being of all such a bad thing? Why isn't it simply an extension of "love thy neighbor"? I tire of hearing the "redistribution of wealth downward is bad" meme. To me it says we're turning into a greedy, self-centered society that lacks the larger perspective of realizing that a baseline support net for all is not only socially repsonsible, but would benefit us individually in extremely far-reaching ways.
Today we live in an Amway pyramid of a society. Those at the top encourage us to follow in their footsteps, knowing the vast majority of us won't make it to their level, but our flailing away at the bottom still benefits them. Just as there better alternatives to Amway, there are better alternatives for our society.

As for Mozilla, I really doubt all of those businesses underwriting them have the intention of overthrowing capitalism. They really seem more like a corporate-sponsored software development think tank, and as think tanks go, certainly a lot less harmless than say, PNAC.

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

[/hijack] Hi, ethan! Welcome back from wherever you've been hiding.

Serenity, you might like XP a whole bunch. I had ME, and crashed it a lot. (At work they give me the software to test. I have a talent for crashing.) Since I've had XP, only one crash and it recovered itself beautifully. The separate desktops are also really nice, as the whole family shares the computer.

I have no opinion about Firefox, as I've been pretty content with IE. Got a really impressive collection of bookmarks, neatly organized into subject folders. Works for me.

Somehow I never realized the ethical and moral attributes of browsers. Who knew?

[barfle]

Originally posted by OT
As for socialism being bad, why is a government policy of each person contributing to the well being of all such a bad thing?

If it were truly contributing, it would be a good thing. However, it's enforced by men with guns against those who do not volunteer, which makes it theft.

One thing about many open source code writers is that they may well feel that they have a better idea, but don't have the wherewithall to go head to head with the big dogs. I have several programs that I used for a while (free trial), then discarded because I didn't like them, and I have others that I have registered and paid for updates. These programs are marketed on the cheap. They can't afford super bowl ads, so they work over the Internet, and make what they can. Yes, that's more a definition of shareware than it is open source, but open source allows a programmer the opportunity to declare his algorithms as his intellectual property, allowing many others to build on that base, and when they make money, so does he.

I have no problem, ethically or otherwise, with people who want open source code. I can imagine that if I were a programmer (but I won't stoop quite that low), that I would very much like to see how MS pulled some of their tricks, discover a way to build on those tricks, and send MS 10% of my profits (or whatever is deemed fair by both parties). However, the originator of that source code has control, and what other people "want" should have no bearing on what he does. It may well be a smart marketing decision to open your code, let others build on it, and sit back and collect your royalties. Gee, I wish I knew how to do that!

All that being said, I use MS products all day, although I use a few products that I can't imagine weren't done by consultants (how many Patent Offices are their in the country?). My computer at work runs NT Workstation, SP6A, rather tightly controlled by someone who is not me, and mostly the MS products are a bit more stable than the others. Are they bloated? Yup. Are they slow to load? Yup. But they do what they're supposed to do, 99+% of the time.

I have Microsoft certification (MCSE+I in NT4), but I'm no apologist for MS. I really don't like what happened to programs like WordStar and Procomm because of them, but it's the way the world is running now. I like the idea of competition, and web browsers' prices have been set so low ($0 seems like predatory pricing to me) that I don't see how money can be made with them, unless they provide some subscribable features. Which is why I'm not in marketing (and I won't stoop that low, either).

[rwcrooks]

OT,

There were 2 separate Windows from Microsoft.

I'll start with:
Windows 3.0, which became 3.10 and then 3.11 with the addition of workgroup functionality.
Using the same basic program code, MS then came up with Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows 98SE and then Windows ME. This is the end of the line with this Windows family.

At the same time that they were selling the Windows 3.x/9x, they also hired away the top software engineer from DEC. This was the guy in charge of developing probably the best O/S ever in existence DEC VMS (rock solid, run for a year without trouble kind of O/S). They started development of the NT family which goes like this:

NT 3.0 became NT3.51 (with a Win 95 like interface). Then to NT 4.0 and on to Windows 2000 and then Windows XP.

Those are only the workstation O/S's. There are also server versions. So you can see why Xp is so different acting ... they didn't have to retain any of the old Win 3.x code base.

There's an interesting story about how Windows NT got its name...

You've probably heard about the computer HAL in the movie 2001, where if you bump up the letters one notch in the alphabet H>I A>B L>M or HAL>IBM.
The same works for David Cutler's old VMS O/S:
V>W M>N S>T or VMS>WNT

[EJA]

Hi Selma! I've been hiding in the salt mines, working my tail off so I can pay higher taxes. It's fun!

Hi Jim! I have no desire to get in a war with you. If you like FX, go ahead and enjoy it. I really doubt that you have given TF a fair hearing, but that is no concern of mine. I expect that FX will have at least as many problems as IE as soon as hackers begin targeting it en masse. Then I promise I won't say I told you so. But if I'm wrong, you know that I'll admit it.

As for your views on socialism, I think that you are sincerely wrong (i.e. sincere and well-intentioned, but wrong). You often try to find support for socialism in scripture, but I don't see it there. In fact, I see just the opposite.

Let's start with the eighth and tenth commandments, "You shall not steal," and, "You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's," ( Exodus 20 ) Both imply private property, and one indicates that it is wrong to take other's property while the other indicates that is wrong even to want it. You may note that there is no qualification to the eighth commandment. Perhaps, "unless you are going to give the goods you stole to the poor," has been lost from the text.

Fast-fowarding ahead to the New Testament, can you find me one instance where Jesus gave money to anyone? He saw the widow give all that she had (two mites) but He didn't do anything for her ( Mark 12 ) When Judas suggested that the ointment should have been sold and the proceeds given to the poor, Jesus rebuffed him and said that there will always be the poor. ( John 12 ) And Judas turned out to be quite a hypocrite. Can you find me one instance where Jesus so much as suggests that the government should provide for the poor, or that the government should provide anything for anyone? On the contrary, He presented God as the one provider of all things ( Matthew 6 esp. v.11, 31, 33 ). Jesus was always inclined to teach a man to fish rather than to give him a fish. At times He did give men fish and loaves, which is very appropriate since He is God. Furthermore, we are to follow in his footsteps, being imitators of God as dear children. So charity is very much encouraged by the Bible. But socialism is not charity. Socialism is replacing God with government as the provider. Socialism is idolatry and stealing all rolled into one, and its adoption is motivated by covetousness.

Jesus, being the Creator of man, understood that for man being is so much more important than having. Our society so often focuses on having, but being is a so much greater gift than possessing. You don't need a car and a phone and an mp3 player and a penthouse and fresh caviar to enjoy life. That isn't even the good part of life. That's just icing. We give our selves so much misery by concentrating on wanting instead of being.

The Bible teaches that the necessities and luxuries of life are the reward of hard work.

"In all labor there is profit,
But idle chatter leads only to poverty."
Proverbs 14:23

"If anyone will not work, neither shall he eat."
Second Thessalonians 3:10b

Christian charity is to be meted out to those who are worthy and truly in need, not to just anyone who wants it ( First Timothy 5 )

No, Jim, I can't see any biblical basis for socialism. I welcome any effort on your part to demonstrate such.

And in view of Proverbs 14:23 I need to get back to work. Millions on wellfare, social security, medicare, and numerous other institutions of socialism depend on me. They would be better off depending on God.

[OperaTenor]

Yeah, MS never got a fair hearing from me because I first used Apple(even some time on a Lisa). Let's just say I was spoiled by GUI that functioned.

I still don't understand why a hacker would even bother with messing with OPEN SOURCE CODE.

In a way Bible quotes are like statistics. They can be used to prove all kinds of points. There is one reference you[Ethan] cite, that to me proves exactly the opposite of your proffering. Wasn't the whole point of Jesus singling out the widow that she gave all she had while the more prosperous folk were guarding their wealth? We can spend the rest of eternity volleying Bible verses back and forth and never sway the other.

I've been relatively poor all my life(I say relatively because I know that in the context of the world I'm not). I don't want others' things. I don't feel having a pile of money will bring happiness. You can ask anyone who's ever known me: I work hard. There are millions like me who are a whole lot less fortunate, who are equally, if not more, deserving.
I feel everyone is entitled some basic protection from catastrophies and calamities in life, and I believe it's everyone's responsibility to ensure that protection is there.

If you've never been there, you don't know what I'm talking about.

With that, I bow out of these social debates. It always comes back to money, and that's not what it's about for me. It's about compassion.

[EJA]

Compassion is great, but the government forcing everyone to be compassionate does not result in compassion. It results in resentment. I believe in compassion and charity, and I practice it. However, I don't think that I should be forced to do so by government. Furthermore, I think that government does a very bad job of compassion and that individuals do a much better job.

The point of the widow's mites was that she had the right attitude. Even though she gave less, she had less, so less was more. She sacrificed whereas the rulers of the synagogue did not. That was evidence of her attitude, which is pleasing in the sight of God. If the government had forced her to give that money--and governments have certainly done that sort of thing in the past--her attitude would have been entirely different. My point is, enforced compassion does not better society. It is a dividing influence. People are much more apathetic about charitable giving if they are already being forced to be charitable by the government.

Yes, we need more compassion, more charity (although the impoverished in the US live better than the kings of medieval times), but government is not the way to bring it about. I understand the need for a safety net, but that isn't the office of government. Charity from government creates a situation in which sloth is rewarded, virtue counts for nothing, and need goes unmet. Charity from individuals is much more sensitive. The motivation of a bureacrat who administers a social program eventually—usually quickly—deteriorates into a combination of laziness and behind covering. The motivation of a private citizen who engages in charity is compassion, love, and fear of God.

[EJA]

Now would somebody please shoot me for being a hopeless hijacker?

[Selma in Sandy Eggo]

Originally posted by EJA:
Now would somebody please shoot me for being a hopeless hijacker?

Bang! Pow!

Lie down and be quiet, you're dead.

[EJA]

Originally posted by OperaTenor:
I still don't understand why a hacker would even bother with messing with OPEN SOURCE CODE.

Perhaps because open source code is much easier to hack? But that's a whole 'nother issue . . .

[EJA]

neener

[Serenity]

Why? I enjoyed that hijack.

[EJA]

Originally posted by Serenity:
Why? I enjoyed that hijack.

Sin must be punished.

[barfle]

I'll go along with OT's statement that biblical verses can be used to support almost any position you care to take, especially in light of modern interpretations (which may or may not be valid - the point is that it can be done). But I have to agree 100% with Ethan that forced compassion (government welfare, for example) is an oxymoron. One thing I know about government bureaucracies is that they do not tend toward efficiency, so why would anyone who really cares about the plight of those less well off want the government to provide them with maybe 1/4th of what was taken from them for the purpose of caring for them?

While I'm not much for helping panhandlers, I donate a reasonable amount to charities I feel are doing what I want done. Most of those have administrative expenses, but the good ones keep it down to a dull roar. Each year, I am given a book of charities I can donate to "at the office" that lists the percentage of each charity's budget spent on overhead and fund raising. Some of them are 0%, meaning that all the administration is volunteer work. While that may not be the make/break factor, it is a significant factor in whether I donate to them or not.

[dai bread]

Any of you capitalists want to tell me about Enron?

Having worked in several places during my working life, I can say that the Private Sector is just as badly run as the Public Sector, and in many cases is worse.

In any society, certain things need to be done. Whether they are done by the Public Sector or the Private Sector is largely a matter of each society's history.

In the early days of this country, for instance, the Govt. was the only outfit big enough to undertake the infrastucture work that was needed. Therefore much of what was done privately in the U.S. (railroads, roads, telephones & electricity for instance) was done publicly here.

As far as I'm aware, private enterprise started in the U.S. because that's the way things were when the place was settled in the 1600's. A couple of hundred years later, when N.Z. was settled, things were different. Neither of us wants to change, except for some of our "entrepreneurs" who can smell money at a hundred paces and want to get their pudgy little fingers on public assets.

[Serenity]

It is George W. Bush's fault. Just ask Shos.

[OperaTenor]

Hi Dai,

I have a question you may be able to help me with: How many "men with guns" are forcing you to abide by and contribute to the social programs in NZ, and just how oppressed do you feel by living in such a socialistic, welfare state?



<small>[ 02-26-2005, 01:05 AM: Message edited by: OperaTenor ]</small>

[dai bread]

Hi O.T. Sorry to take so lomg to get to this topic.

I suppose you could say there are several hundred, if not thousand, "men with guns" forcing me to contribute to others' welfare. They're the staff of the IRD. Or IRS as Americans have it.

Of course, others are now contributing to my welfare by way of my Old Age Pension and my increasing (eventually) calls on our socialised medical services.

At present I am feeling very oppressed. Local body taxes on property (we call them rates) are up 16%, electricity is up 5%, (private sector) petrol tax is up 5% (public sector) and the uniformed branch of the IRD (aka police) are collecting ever greater sums from drivers who break the speed limit.

Seriously though, I have never felt oppressed by living in a welfare state. I have felt oppressed by being required to conform to others' notions, but now that I've retired that's less of a problem. It was never anything to do with the Govt.

I regard the welfare state in much the same way that I regard an insurance company. I pay, and I may never need the service. But if I do, it's there. I've made few serious claims on an insurance company, but I pay the premiums all the same.

I've made claims on the state; schooling, the odd stay in hospital, things like that. I drive on the state-provided roads. My taxes pay for others to use these things: their taxes pay for me to use them. Fair enough, I think.

Mind you, if I lived in Sweden, where income tax runs to about 60% I believe, I might start to think differently.

What did you have in mind when you asked the question?