Mozilla Corporation

According to the New York Times, the Mozilla Foundation is planning to create a for-profit subsidiary to promote further growth of its products.

Much like Opera Software has done as a company for ten years, the new Mozilla Corporation says that it wishes to promote an open Internet. Now, more than ever, actions will speak louder than words.


13 thoughts on “Mozilla Corporation

  1. Yeah, the whole Mozilla IS Netscape 2. Look at the Mozilla's board of directors names. And we must remeber these guys "invented" <blink> and <font> tags. More evil than M$.

  2. Mozilla:

    *Words: "Standards compliance!"
    *Action: *Implements non-standard Gecko extensions for web devs to use*

    *Words: "Hooray, we are nice people and all!"
    *Action: *Underhanded dirt slinging, FUD and lies against competitors*

    But there's good news! Maybe this will finally force the Asa troll to shut up…

  3. That's not exactly what I was talking about. More like they need to keep their focus and not let "easy solutions" ruin everything. As a commercial entity they will hopefully continue to promote open standards and avoid mistakes that a lot of companies make.

    Hopefully they, like Opera, will contribute even more to the W3C and similar organizations. Opera has several employees that are paid by us to work at the W3C (and WHATWG for that matter). As a commercial entity, they might be able to put real money behind open standards like Opera does. Although they surely contribute already of course.

  4. Non-standard extensions are bad. Got it. Better get rid of Opera's -o-link, -o-source, and similar properties, then.

    What? They're intended for internal use by the application only? Why, gosh, so are -moz-border-radius and the like!

    Speaking of FUD…

  5. I'm not talking about stuff that's clearly marked as "internal use only". More like stuff like XMLHttpRequest.

  6. And Opera implemented it why? Because Mozilla added a non standard feature which people blamed Opera for not supporting.

  7. I think there is very fine line between extensions that are useful (innovative, vendor-independent) and extensions that are "cool", but have harmful design flaws or make better technologies seem redundant.

    I consider XMLHTTPRequest to be in the first group.

Comments are closed.