Future MS-MDN "deals"??
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| vainrveenr Oct 28, 2011 12:26 PM EDT |
From last year's Mozilla Blog entry 'Refreshing the Firefox Search Bar' found at http://blog.mozilla.com/blog/2010/10/06/refreshing-the-firefox-search-bar/::
Quoting:Google remains the most popular general search and it will remain as the default search option, unless you change it. And now the change-of-heart from the current Mozilla Blog entry 'Offering a Customized Firefox Experience for Bing Users' found at http://blog.mozilla.com/blog/2011/10/26/offering-a-customized-firefox-experience-for-bing-users/:: Quoting:Mozilla and Bing are pleased to make available Firefox with Bing, a customized version of Firefox that sets Bing as the default search engine in the search box and AwesomeBar and makes Bing.com the default home page. (Existing Firefox users can also make these changes by installing the Bing Search for Firefox Add-on). Note that many Linux visitors of the 'Firefox with Bing' site http://www.firefoxwithbing.com/ are currently (as of this writing) greeted with the highly unwelcoming message:: Quoting:Firefox with BingNever mind that this download may ONLY be supported within Microsoft Windows. Whatever the case turns out to be concerning officially-supported systems, one has to wonder just HOW Microsoft and the Mozilla Developer Network can steer new FF users towards sole use of the customized FF with Bing, and effectively get existing FF (or Iceweasel) users w/o Bing to install the Bing Search for Firefox Add-on?? |
| devnet Oct 28, 2011 12:37 PM EDT |
Hey, Google was the one that ditched Firefox remember? They funded Mozilla for quite sometime until they came out with Chrome...so now Mozilla has to get their money from somewhere...and Microsoft is all about getting more Bing for their buck (http://instantrimshot.com/). I don't blame them one bit on this...thank Google for ditching Mozilla...that's the catalyst of this action. |
| mortenalver Oct 28, 2011 1:11 PM EDT |
Funny - they just customize Firefox to make Bing the default search engine, and suddenly it doesn't run on Linux? |
| tracyanne Oct 28, 2011 5:57 PM EDT |
I got Quoting:Firefox with Bing "Add Bing to Firefox" is a button. |
| BernardSwiss Oct 28, 2011 5:58 PM EDT |
Wild-assed guesses: Perhaps it just looks at the headers, and sees some "old" version of Firefox? - - - I didn't spot anything on the main page (it did make a big deal about me still using an "old" Firefox version), or the add-ons page. A search on the term "Bing" did produce the official MS add-on. I'm thinking that this announcement might be really aimed at OEMs, and/or Google, as their current arrangement is due for renewal (and thus renegotiation) soon -- sort of like those OEMs and Windows-based IT depts used to flirt with Linux. |
| tracyanne Oct 28, 2011 6:03 PM EDT |
When I allow the correct javascript and click on the button it attempts to install an xpi file (a firefox addon file), firefox asks for my permission to do so, I disallow it. Which means there are no issues for people using Linux. |
| Grishnakh Oct 29, 2011 4:55 PM EDT |
devnet wrote:Hey, Google was the one that ditched Firefox remember? They funded Mozilla for quite sometime until they came out with Chrome...so now Mozilla has to get their money from somewhere...and Microsoft is all about getting more Bing for their buck (http://instantrimshot.com/). Google wouldn't have bothered pouring resources into Chrome if Mozilla didn't suck so bad. Mozilla was the one that refused to improve its browser, stuck with an obsolete one-process-for-everything model so if one window crashes, your entire browser crashes, with a horribly slow Javascript interpreter. Google obviously couldn't rely on Mozilla to lead the way with browsers, so it had to do it itself. |
| patrokov Oct 30, 2011 1:14 AM EDT |
Quoting:Google obviously couldn't rely on Mozilla to lead the way with browsers, so it had to do it itself.And they wouldn't get rid of that pesky Adblock thingy. |
| Grishnakh Oct 30, 2011 5:27 PM EDT |
@patrokov: What the heck are you talking about? Adblock Plus works just fine on Chrome. Take off your tinfoil hat. |
| BernardSwiss Oct 30, 2011 5:31 PM EDT |
But many people don't consider "not showing the ads" to be equivalent to, or as good as, "blocking the ads". |
| Grishnakh Oct 30, 2011 5:53 PM EDT |
@Bernard: Again, what are you talking about? ABP does block the ads. |
| BernardSwiss Oct 30, 2011 6:54 PM EDT |
Sorry, my understanding (admittedly second hand) is that the "adblocker" on Chrome in reality merely hides them from view. If that is a mistaken understanding, I will of course appreciate being enlightened. |
| patrokov Oct 30, 2011 7:25 PM EDT |
Grishnakh, it's called humor. |
| Grishnakh Oct 30, 2011 9:27 PM EDT |
@Bernard: According to this article, Chrome's had this ability since last year. Funnily enough, the capability wasn't added by Google, but by Apple. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/20/chrome_does_resource... |
| BernardSwiss Oct 30, 2011 10:24 PM EDT |
@Grishnakh Thank-you. Useful info. And now I am more receptive to Chrom(e/ium) on my systems. Any input on why the dev says "The 'beforeload' feature is considered a good workaround but not a complete solution," ? It's a little odd that I care. I don't actually bother with adblock on Firefox (on the principle that you don't "bind the mouths of the kine that tread the grain"). Flashblock and BetterPrivacy, privacy-mode, and automatic deletion cookies, etc are more than sufficient to my needs -- but likewise, merely pretending to block ads (with all the privacy concerns that raises) rubbed me the wrong way. |
| tracyanne Oct 30, 2011 11:50 PM EDT |
Quoting:But many people don't consider "not showing the ads" to be equivalent to, or as good as, "blocking the ads". I'm one. I don't care how much the advertisers pay, so long as I don't have to put up with that cr... uh sort of thing. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!