4 ms·

Gruber nails it again. Mozilla's hypocrisy is as always overly evident. Their stance is fuelled by sheer greed, obviously - it's about money, about them not wan

Gruber nails it again. Mozilla's hypocrisy is as always overly evident. Their stance is fuelled by sheer greed, obviously - it's about money, about them not wanting to cut down on their yearly economical influx, not about being "open and free", as their actions of trying to sweep the bleeding case of Flash under the carpet is so obviously telling. I wonder, did any of the non-Mozilla developers, whose work spans the majority of the project today, ever see a single dime of the _tens of millions_ of USD (yes, that's their revenue) going into the Mozilla Foundation from their search engine sponsor choice? No, I didn't think so either.

jerf 17y ago
Mozilla's money comes from Google. Google owns YouTube, the world's largest video site. YouTube is using h264. If your theory was correct that Mozilla is solely concerned with money, your theory would predict that they would support h264, rabidly.
- hackermom 17y ago
  How? Whatever does Google Search have to do with YouTube? Google Search is not affected in any way what so ever by neither Google's nor Mozilla's love or hate for h.264. Also, YouTube is fully enjoyable with Flash. No matter how I twist and turn your response, I just can't see the red line you're trying to draw here.
  - jerf 17y ago
    Yes, weak critical thinking does seem to be a problem here. Let me collapse the three simple implications for you down to "All of Mozilla's money comes from a known h264 supporter." If you're going to make some sort of bizarre conspiracy theory about money making Mozilla hypocrites, then following that up with "And therefore Mozilla is not going to support h264" just doesn't make any sense whatsoever. If they were slaves of their money, they would be supporting h264 loudly; this is sticking a finger in the eye of their money source, not kowtowing to them.
Daishiman 17y ago
Why don't you crawl back to your cave and offer a meaningful argument? The Mozilla Foundation's stance is perfectly logical: Flash is not bundled with Firefox. H.264 cannot be bundled with Firefox and still be considered Free Software. Mozilla shouldn't have to spend a dime to support a nonfree encoder.
FooBarWidget 17y ago
Even if that's true, why are spinning it like it's some kind of evil thing? They're giving you a product for free and you still want them to pay hidden costs for you? How are they supposed to feed their programmers if they don't make profit?

jerf 17y ago

Mozilla's money comes from Google. Google owns YouTube, the world's largest video site. YouTube is using h264. If your theory was correct that Mozilla is solely concerned with money, your theory would predict that they would support h264, rabidly.

hackermom 17y ago
How? Whatever does Google Search have to do with YouTube? Google Search is not affected in any way what so ever by neither Google's nor Mozilla's love or hate for h.264. Also, YouTube is fully enjoyable with Flash. No matter how I twist and turn your response, I just can't see the red line you're trying to draw here.
- jerf 17y ago
  Yes, weak critical thinking does seem to be a problem here. Let me collapse the three simple implications for you down to "All of Mozilla's money comes from a known h264 supporter." If you're going to make some sort of bizarre conspiracy theory about money making Mozilla hypocrites, then following that up with "And therefore Mozilla is not going to support h264" just doesn't make any sense whatsoever. If they were slaves of their money, they would be supporting h264 loudly; this is sticking a finger in the eye of their money source, not kowtowing to them.

Daishiman 17y ago

Why don't you crawl back to your cave and offer a meaningful argument? The Mozilla Foundation's stance is perfectly logical: Flash is not bundled with Firefox. H.264 cannot be bundled with Firefox and still be considered Free Software. Mozilla shouldn't have to spend a dime to support a nonfree encoder.

FooBarWidget 17y ago

Even if that's true, why are spinning it like it's some kind of evil thing? They're giving you a product for free and you still want them to pay hidden costs for you? How are they supposed to feed their programmers if they don't make profit?