Jump to content

Talk:Mozilla

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 202.7.39.57 (talk) at 04:41, 10 March 2014. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Histories merged

I have merged the histories of the article Mozilla and the article Mozilla Application Suite which was created as a clone without history from the entire contents of this article as it stood two weeks ago, the original contents being replaced by a clone of the contents at that time of the article Mozilla (disambiguation). I do not understand why the decision was taken to split the original article off and replace it by another which is somewhat parallel to the existing article Mozilla (disambiguation), but doing so was contrary to the GFDL.

This has been a stupid and unnecessary event, which may take some time to disentangle. The article could have been moved to Mozilla Appplication Suite and the disambig moved here (Mozilla) without losing the integrity of the article history and without compromising the GFDL. This is what we mean when we say don't do cut-and-paste copies. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the old Mozilla should have been moved to Mozilla Application Suite, and the old Mozilla (disambiguation) should have been moved to Mozilla. I don't know if it was a good idea to merge their histories, though... Mozilla is basicly a disambiguation page, while Mozilla Application Suite is specificly about the browser suite. --taestell 23:50, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Mozilla was originally about the latter, and the vastness of its history is of that article. The more recent edits will perhaps have to be moved to replace the current content of Mozilla (disambiguation) if that can be done without contravening the GFDL. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:55, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mozilla (disambiguation) needs to be redirected to Mozilla, which should remain how it looks now: short summaries of each deinition, with links to the longer articles. Mozilla Application Suite needs to be created to talk about the suite. --taestell 00:11, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Confusing page

I'm a layman and I'm confused. Is there any connection between Netscape and Mozilla-the-makers-of-Firefox? And if Mozilla is a trademark of Netscape, why are Mozilla-the-makers-of-Firefox allowed to use it as the name for a free browser that many people use in preference to buying Netscape Navigator?! I'm sure all the relevant info is in this article, but it's not clearly expressed for ignorant readers like myself. A few sentences in the introduction could make this so much clearer. The Singing Badger 23:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In looking at the article, the answers to your questions seem obvious. I don't see any reason to put the specific information you mention at the top of the article, other than that seems to be to the information you happened to be looking for while reading the article. The article doesn't say that Mozilla is a trademark of Netscape — it clearly states that Mozilla is a trademark of the Mozilla Foundation. -- Schapel 03:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you're right. Maybe I shouldn't try to read articles when I'm tired. Thanks for making the effort to reply, and I apologize. <:( The Singing Badger 04:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tax Evasion Rumors

Does anyone know if the Mozilla tax evasion stuff posted on an apparently not-approved-for-wikipedia website is true??? I stumbled upon it and now I am quite curious. The article doesn't mention this at all, are the tax evasion accusations all rot? --JP 4/24/06

Being a legal matter, wouldn't that be for a court to decide? Until the matter is brought to court, I think we should dismiss any criminal accusations as unfounded. -- Schapel 00:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mozilla foundation and suite work, future tense

> Mozilla Foundation will no longer release new versions of the suite, so that developers can focus on Firefox and Thunderbird.

I'm not quite sure how to comment on an article like this, but the Mozilla Foundation made the choice so that *its* developers can focus on Firefox/Thundebird. The sentence to me, as I read it, seems to imply that it was so that all (Mozilla) developers could focus on Firefox and Thunderbird.

Also, if Mozilla Foundation is no longer releasing versions, wouldn't "Mozilla Foundation no longer makes new releases of the suite" (present instead of future tense), be better? Or alternatively, if someone really likes the current construction, perhaps "As of <date/reference>, {sentence}"?

I'm not certain that there will not be another 1.7.x release.

18 June 2006

Mozilla Application Suite section

I was reading a bit in this section of the article, and I notice there's a picture of Firefox 2 RC3 in there. There are two things about this. The first thing is, there's a Firefox screenshot in this section. Should this be removed/relocated somewhere else? The second thing is, It's mislabeled as "Mozilla 2.0". If it fits anywhere else in here, shouldn't it be called "Mozilla Firefox 2.0"? After all, that would mislead someone reading to learn a bit of information about the Mozilla Suite. Moronicles 20:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mozilla vs Mozzilla

Surpisingly, entering Mozzilla (2 'z's) into a Wikipedia search, seamlessly sends you to this page (1 'z'). Yet, searching for Mozzilla with 2z in google, cheerfully sends you to http://www.mozzilla.pl/, complete with a firefox 2 download "invitation". I'm not a security expert, but something about the page makes me think that it's malware, masquerading as Mozilla (1z). I was hoping to get confirmation of my gut feel here, (or if it's legit, a good explanation of what's going on). But... there's no inkle here of anything. confused & paranoid. 64.26.147.9 08:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, download what you know you can trust and stay on the official website. That's the wisest thing to do pretty much always. There's no need to be paranoid. Womanhood 06:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mascot

There is nothing about the use of the mascot for the Mozilla Suite. Please also add caption for the two pictures.

thumb|right|200px|Mozilla logo (yes but more precisely old/alternative logo of the Mozilla Foundation?) 165px|right|thumb|author? date? which usage?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 16@r (talk • contribs) 18:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Section - A collective name for all Mozilla-based browsers

I was just wondering if a comprehensive table of version numbers of all related browsers might be drawn up? Looking at the release history in the SeaMonkey article, there are columns that tell you which branch version each version is built from (for example, SeaMonkey v 1.1.5 comes from rv 1.8.1). I think that if we had something which listed Firefox, Netscape, SeaMonkey, Camino, Flock, K-Meleon etc, all together, then this might help people to know which product has the latest additions to the layout engine, security, etc (considering that release dates do not always indicate this) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.232.19.118 (talk) 11:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mascot

Can someone please add the original Mozilla? Helpsloose 03:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Air Mozilla

Will anything be listed about this? http://air.mozilla.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by ConradKilroy (talk • contribs) 05:10, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Mozilla in Air Mozilla is the same as the Mozilla Corporation, so it's already described in this article. You can create a new article for Air Mozilla if you like. -- Schapel 12:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

mascott

For some reason I thought the mozilla mascott for netscape was different then the mozilla mascott for the mozilla foundation. Bawolff 21:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reorder?

IMHO: all this history, name and logo stuff is interesting but secondary. IMHO: the Mozilla s/w suites should be primary info, and thus have a central place in the initial introductory paragraphs, and come early in the article. Then, such a strange name as "Mozilla" and the use of a T. Rexxy logo must obviously be explained. Other IxHO:s? Said: Rursus ☻ 09:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

mozilla.org

mozilla.org redirects to here. The article should document the project during the pre-Foundation days, when it was led by jwz and afterwards, especially the aspect of community-authored essays and whatnot. 129.15.131.246 (talk) 08:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was intended for the Mozilla Foundation page, although I think what I'm describing would fit in better here. 129.15.131.246 (talk) 08:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

XML and blog

What about include information about managing of XML file (i.e. metalink files or RSS files) in SeaMonkey and Firefox (latest versions)?. --77.210.125.202 (talk) 08:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's with the British Spellings?

This is an entirely American page, and there should be no British spellings on this page. I'll let you use behaviour or organisation on the Beatles page, but there is no reason for that here. USA! USA! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.236.150.198 (talk) 14:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Songbird

Songbird is mentioned as a mozilla product, but I doubt it is actually one. It's made by Pioneers of the Inevitable. Check the website, it uses XUL so it's POWERED by mozilla. No more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.179.53.57 (talk) 21:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mozilla Labs

"Mozilla Labs" redirects here, but is not explained in the article. -- Beland (talk) 16:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have an error message when launching Mozilla Firefox states chrome —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.79.56.152 (talk) 10:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name origin

According to this page, "The name was created as a contraction of the words 'Mosaic killer', hinting that Netscape would be the end to the (then only) competitor browser, Mosaic." Yet according to -zilla (suffix), the name illustrates "a back-formation derived from the Japanese movie character Godzilla," and provides two sources to that effect. Should this inconsistency be mentioned on the page? The citations on -zilla suggest that, regardless of what Mozilla's creators had in mind, contemporary hearers relate the word to Godzilla. There should be some source added for the historical 'Mosaic killer' etymology. Cnilep (talk) 16:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that it's both - it started off as "Mosaic killer", became the portmanteau "Mosiller", which someone realised almost rhymes with "Godzilla", and so the spelling was changed to match. But that's only a guess. However, the list on -zilla (suffix) looks to me like a mishmash of entities named after Mozilla and entities named directly after Godzilla. -- Smjg (talk) 19:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was there when we came up with the nickname Mozilla, and I can tell you categorically that it does not stand for "Mosaic Killer". Mozilla is a blending of "Mosaic" and "Godzilla". The "Mosaic Killer" meaning would have made no sense at that time since the name of our company was "Mosaic Communications". Mozilla was what we called our browser since we didn't have any other name at the time. Zawinski was a huge fan of Gozilla at the time and had Gozilla toys and posters around the office. Eventually Greg Sands named the product Netscape and then we ended up changing our company name to Netscape a few months later. Here is a Quora reference, but it is from me, so it isnt' a great citation. http://www.quora.com/User-Agents/Why-do-non-Mozilla-browsers-include-Mozilla-in-their-user-agent-strings What kind of citation would you want for this? Montulli (talk) 19:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

How is the name Mozilla meant to be pronounced? In my time I seem to have come across /məʊ'zɪlə/, /mɒ'zɪlə/, /mə'zɪlə/, /mɒt'sɪlə/ and /mɒd'zɪlə/. Can anyone find any statement of the official pronunciation anywhere? -- Smjg (talk) 19:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Working at Mozilla

I nwork at Mozilla. It is a happy enviroment, I help out on live Firefox support aswel helping troubled users. Though, some can get abit buggy!

Wjack2010 (talk) 16:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to hear it, but keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a forum. This discussion page is for discussing the encyclopedia article for Mozilla. Thanks. -- Schapel (talk) 16:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the "user agent string" of many browsers

Hi I hope I can remove non-proved informarion (especulative or opinion) from the article, in bold I selected exactly what I hope to get removed: "Because the Netscape browser initially implemented many features not available in other browsers and quickly came to dominate the market, a number of web sites were designed to work, or work fully, only when they detected an appropriate version of Mozilla in the user agent string."

This information doesn't even add a specific info to the real topic of information "Part of the "user agent string" of many browsers". The fact is Netscape didn't came to dominate the market because it "implemented many features not available in other browsers", if the editor didn't forgot there were/are many other browsers than Internet Explorer that implemented features before Netscape... that's fanboy's lie. Maybe other browsers didn't implemented these features the fanboy wanted us to believe, but implemented other fetures... My question: who defines which features does people wants in their browsers? A Wikipedian?

Marketing and cost + AOL's hands, that's the reason Netscape dominated the marketing. --Rafaelluik (talk) 19:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article does not say why Netscape came to dominate the market. It says Because the Netscape browser initially implemented many features not available in other browsers and quickly came to dominate the market, making no mention of a cause-effect relationship between the statement the Netscape browser initially implemented many features not available in other browsers and the statement Netscape quickly came to dominate the market. It simply states that both of those things occurred. You've created a strawman argument. -- Schapel (talk) 19:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You still have no proof of "Netscape browser initially implemented many features not available in other browsers". --Rafaelluik (talk) 21:29, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The current wording is OK, Schapel explanation is solid. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 00:29, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Netscape was the first to implement JavaScript, Cookies, and Plugins. They didn't just implement those features first; they invented the features. Those are major browser features still in wide use today. How you can say I have "no proof" is bewildering. Is it your contention that Netscape did not implement these features first? -- Schapel (talk) 02:09, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah! Now I get it... You meant web page features, not today's web browser "features"... You consider the "support for JS features" a feature while I'm used to consider "tabs" as a feature, hm the web was really different back in the time, I really get it now thanks. --Rafaelluik (talk) 23:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox

I'm with a group of Mozillans and Wikipedians and after a lot of discussions, we think this page needs a really fundamental rewrite. We've put up a sandbox page at Talk:Mozilla/Sandbox. Input welcome. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:20, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is now complete and histmerged into the article! Thanks everyone! Deryck C. 14:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How to mention the CISCO proprietary compromise?

The intro presents Mozilla from Mozilla's point of view. Using their manifesto as a reference is far from optimal. A reader of the manifesto would think that Mozilla wouldn't install proprietary video codecs on your computer, but that's what they've recently decided to do: [1] [2]

I'm not looking to discuss whether they did the right thing or not, but the article should note that Mozilla's values can be interpreted in various ways depending on the circumstances.

A free software supporter reading the Mozilla Manifesto could think it's great and that Mozilla will therefore reject all non-free software. A Microsoft or Apple employee could read it and think it applies equally to their work and could argue that the Manifesto requires installing non-free software because it's necessary for providing people with the technical/physical possibilities to enjoy what's available on the internet.

Mozilla's actions show that they are much much much closer to the free software interpretation. But, their recent move shows they can interpret their manifesto in the non-free sense when they think it's beneficial.

It's important to note that Mozilla's compromise was done to maintain their market share so that they would be in a position to act as a conduit for a free format when the next format battle erupts. So they really do have free software values at heart, but still, the link to their manifesto is misleading without context.

Any ideas for how to mention this in the article? --Gronky (talk) 09:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about find a secondary source that says what you want to say, summarize what it says in your own words, and cite it in the article? That's basically the same procedure as adding any material to Wikipedia. If you want to say that Mozilla can interpret their manifesto in the non-free sense, find a reliable source that says that and cite it. -- Schapel (talk) 23:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The two links I gave should do for sources, but the difficulty is finding a fair wording. I don't have a source saying "Mozilla interprets their manifesto as it suits them", but the article would just be misleading if it said "Mozilla is committed to openness", and then in the next sentence "Mozilla installs non-free software". There's currently no secondary source for the former, but I do have one for the latter, so I'll delete the part that says Mozilla is committed to openness (until someone digs up a secondary source). I wanted to ask here first because I think it's a bit harsh. Mozilla is committed to free software. I just don't have a reference for that right now. Gronky (talk) 09:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Done. It's possible that putting this in the intro is giving it undue weight. Given the years long contributions of Mozilla to free software and open standards. I've no objection to it being moved to a lower section, but the old intro "Mozilla follows its manifesto" simply had to be changed. Gronky (talk) 09:59, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One problem: "This was justified..." We should avoid passive voice, and worse, it doesn't explain who did the justifying. All opinions stated in Wikipedia should be attributed to some person or group. -- Schapel (talk) 16:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quite correct. I've added to refs now, and moved it out of the intro. Mozilla really is a good member of the free software community, so their compromises (should be noted but) shouldn't be exaggerated. Gronky (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think in the same vein we might want to mention the fact that Mozilla stopped supporting MNG, a web standard for animated graphics, and introduced APNG, a non-standard extension for animated graphics. Mozilla does fight for use of standardized technology and free software, but they do indeed make compromises. -- Schapel (talk) 15:20, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the details, but the MNG article says that none of the major browsers supported it. It was supposed to replace GIFs on web pages, so major browser support is important. It looks like Mozilla tried to promote it, but it didn't take off, and then tried a different format, and that was a success. Seems like a technical or tactical decision - I don't see how it explains or contradicts their values.
I'm not even sure that APNG is non-standard (compared to MNG). PNG is standardised by IESG, and it's a de facto standard because everyone implements it. APNG isn't approved by any standards body, but it's widely supported so it's at least a de facto standard. (And the spec is published and there's a free software reference implementation, so it's "open".) As for MNG, I searched the ietf.org site for "multiple-image network graphics" and got no hits. I don't think dropping MNG support contradicts their claims to support open standards. They can't support every open standard - that would make the software too big - so they have to choose. Gronky (talk) 17:06, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mozilla supported MNG, but they yanked support back when their usage share was under 2%. APNG is popular because Mozilla threw their weight behind it and not long afterwards had an order of magnitude more usage share. If they would have done the same for MNG, it would be popular instead of APNG. In essence, Mozilla did what IE and Netscape did in the early days -- made up their own proprietary technology and push it rather than the standards, which contradicts the manifesto again. They may or may not have had a valid justification for doing so, but they did do it. -- Schapel (talk) 19:13, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Was MNG a standard? How is APNG more proprietary than MNG?
Microsoft's actions are nasty because they invent a format, keep it secret, and then free software browsers are at a disadvantage. It's a way to attack others. Mozilla's format was publicly documented and they published a free software implementation, so it couldn't have been used the way Microsoft (and maybe Netscape, I can't remember) did.
Microsoft was trying to replace open formats with closed formats. But where's the harm in what Mozilla did with APNG? What's the contradiction with their manifesto? They stopped supporting one particular open format/standard, but they didn't harm open standards in general, they just replaced open format A with open format B. Gronky (talk) 20:40, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The harm Mozilla did was not supporting web standards, as they claim they do. MNG is a web standard, as part of PNG. APNG is a proprietary format invented by Mozilla; they then submitted it to a standards body and it was rejected, so my understanding is that it is still non-standard to this day, as explained in the Wikipedia article on PNG. The problem with what IE and Netscape did was not to make the technologies "open", but created their own proprietary tags instead of following what the standards dictated or waiting for standard to be developed. Mozilla is supposed to stand for supporting existing web standards, not having browser makers create their own non-standard technogolies, as they themselves did with APNG. -- Schapel (talk) 22:59, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
MNG isn't part of the PNG standard, section 8.4 of the standard says it was explicitly decided not to include any support for animation. So in terms of being open or proprietary, MNG and APNG are in the exact same position. Mozilla supported one, it wasn't a success, so they (wrote and) supported the other, and it was a partial success (much broader support, but still very little usage). It looks like Mozilla is just doing their best to promote and support an open format to replace GIF. Nothing nasty or harmful. Gronky (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I never said anything about being nasty or harmful. I'm just saying that Mozilla developed their own proprietary format and dropped support for a web standard, which is contrary to their stated mission. MNG wasn't a success because Mozilla dropped it in favor of APNG. If they had just supported the already existing MNG, there never would have been any APNG. In any case, I'll add the facts to the article -- this quibbling over details is pointless. -- Schapel (talk) 14:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but APNG and MNG are in the exact same position in terms of being "proprietary" or "a web standard". Neither are published by a recognised standards body, but both have a public spec and a free software reference implementation. I can't see how a link can be made to their values. Gronky (talk) 14:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I found another example of Mozilla creating and supporting propritary technologies, as described here: [3]. Again, someone is pointing out that Mozilla added something proprietary (the spellcheck attribute) and began supporting it without getting it approved by a standards body. It looks like a Mozilla employee asks How are we any better, then, than Microsoft and all its superfluous DOM extensions? Indeed! -- Schapel (talk) 14:30, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Their Shumway project is a bigger example of displaying content written in non-standardised formats, but where's the contradiction with their values? They never said they'd only support things published by standards bodies. I just noticed that their manifesto doesn't include the word "standard" anywhere. They only mention "format" once, and it's just to say that they value interoperability.
(This is partly because their manifesto contains almost no commitments to anything. Shame on them for publishing a vague marketing document and calling it a "manifesto". But that's beside the point.)
As for the spellchecker comment. It seems it was made by someone called "Error792", in 2006[4], and it was his/her only contribution to the wiki. Anyone can make an account on that wiki.[5] Are you sure it's a Mozilla employee? But even if it was an employee, I don't think that that comment proves anything about their values.
But we could add something to say "Mozilla has done a lot of work to promote open formats, but they also include code to display web pages written in non-standard and even proprietary technlogies, such as Flash and ...". Do you have any reliable sources for major criticism of Mozilla regarding stanards? For a project with millions of users, comments from individual users aren't indicative of much. Gronky (talk) 21:58, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Red Panda or Red Fox?

The Firefox logo features a red panda, also known as a Firefox.

Mozilla have officially said that it is a Red Panda [6]. But either they made a mistake they can't go back on or their artist specifically ignored what a Red Panda looked like. The latter did happen with one of the concept artists [7] and the logo was based on a image of a Red Fox. [8]

Firefox OS uses a Red Fox as the mascot.

So while it makes sense to say Mozilla refer to it as a Red Panda, it's clear the people who actually drew the logo had something else is mind.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mozilla&oldid=598937709"