Comments on: Nokia cash boosts Mozilla

IE "killer" comes back from the dead as browser battleground shifts from PCs to devices.

[Jonathan]

Funny. I didn?t know they needed help

I've seen Firefox installed all over the dang place. So this event, while cool and always welcome, isn't that big of a deal. Mozilla can NOT compete against MS in anything other then open source freeware. If they ever try and get back into the money generating business they are going to get their ***es kicked.

The only way they are every going to take MS down is keep making superior, FREE products like the newly released FireFox .9

Objective press

The biasness of the journalist whom write stories on this site still amazes me. I would think that a person would at least have a clue before committing to write something and stick their name on it. The one thing I can say is this. I see a lot of new advertising for Novel on this site, so I take it their in bed together and Novel will begin to get a fair shake. Anything else that is not M$ seems to be S.O.L.

bias?

Which part of the story was bias? The facts he presents check out. He does not slam firefox at all, just gives a brief history and feature list. I think that firefox is the best browser ever, could not imagine going back to ie, but I don't expect every article I read about it to lavish it with praise(tho they should, it rocks). What part did you find offensive?

[Steven N]

Mozilla bulky???

I once did a calculus of all the stuff that is running to get IE started, and came to a lot more, but this amount is hidden in the rest of the OS of course...

[penguiniator]

Nice Try at Subtle Bias

The opening remark has no basis in reality.

"Nokia has funded a cell phone browser project at the Mozilla Foundation, breathing new life into the open-source effort once written off as Microsoft roadkill."

It was Netscape that was written off as Microsoft roadkill. Mozilla has been a lively project all along. It may have suffered from some funding problems, but has never suffered for lack of developers to the point of stagnation. It's code base, originally based on Netscape, has been wholly replaced by Mozilla developers.

He goes on to say that "Mozilla toiled for a nail-biting 32 months before Netscape--then owned by AOL--produced a browser based on its work. That initial release met with scathing reviews", and points to his own scathing review as an example. Nearly every link included in the article is to anther article written by him, using his own material to support his own material.

In fact, he is in the habit of using his own articles to support comments he makes in his own articles without giving proper attribution to the fact that he is doing so. He simply prefaces statements with phrasing such as "Many in the industry" while pointing to his own articles as examples of the "many" he is referring to.

This guy has a long history of making unsubstantiated remarks about open source software and of using his own unsubstantiated remarks to support them.

c|net writers are well known for doing this. It's too bad that there are so few sources of information that are trustworthy.

[bmacfarland]

Perhaps subtle, perhaps not...

I think Cnet refers to itself when it can, because it makes business sense. Why push someone to another site and earn them money, when they can keep people on this site, show more ads, and get more money. I agree with your point, but I also understand theirs.