In a recent interview with blogger Chris Soghoian, Mozilla's technology strategist Mike Shaver responded to and rejected claims that Firefox and Google are getting a bit too close for comfort. Mozilla is independent, with or without Google's $56 million.
Web sites launch all the time, but they also shut their doors. We highlight 15 that bit the dust this year.
Let the debate begin: Was the iPhone more important than iTunes? Was anything bigger than Google finding a great business model? CNET offers its list of the 10 most important stories of the '00s.
Christopher Soghoian delves into the areas of security, privacy, technology policy and cyber-law. He is a student fellow at Harvard University's Berkman Center for Internet and Society, and is a PhD candidate at Indiana University's School of Informatics. His academic work and contact information can be found by visiting www.dubfire.net/chris/. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure.
Add this feed to your online news reader
into new Firefox somehow sends data to Google? Is Google the only anti
phishing solution on market? URL correction, Google too.
This is a browser which you can't type "news" to go straight to news.com,
you have to press alt or something. Why? Because Google wants to "search"
for news.
If you support open source, in pure form, support Konqueror and upcoming
KDE. They don't do such tricks and have Apple/Nokia at their back.
Why not Ubuntu customize Firefox search boxes and earn the money? Mozilla Corporation is receiving easy money.
- Re: Every security technology sends data to Google
- by xhva November 14, 2007 5:12 PM PST
- Ilgaz, the only feature that sends data to Google is the "live" anti-phishing list, which isn't enabled by default. It has to be manually enabled. As mentioned in the article Google's phishing data is free whereas other sources are commercial, and Google has the infrastructure to support a huge userbase updating the list every half an hour.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(3 Comments)As for URL auto-completion, I think it makes more sense to search when a user provides an incomplete term. Auto-completion is blind guesswork, wastes DNS traffic and usually doesn't provide useful results unless you already know the site you're after (and in that case, I don't think holding ALT or typing an extra four characters is such a big deal). This is an end-user usability issue more than anything.
TaylorDi: Distros can do whatever they like with the source. I've no doubt Ubuntu et al could broker a commercial deal to replace the default search in Moz and Konq. Of course this just shifts the commercial interests from a single program into the distro itself (which would probably create even more furor anyway).