I disagree that this is the same thing. At the release of Mozilla 1.0, the website looked like this: http://web.archive.org/web/20020802080030/http://mozilla.o

I disagree that this is the same thing. At the release of Mozilla 1.0, the website looked like this: http://web.archive.org/web/20020802080030/http://mozilla.org/ http://web.archive.org/web/20020802080030/http://mozilla.org... -- clearly targeted towards developers, with product download links hidden in a nondescript column. I suppose that's what Ross was talking about: The site didn't offer any convincing arguments as to why you'd want to download their browser, and didn't make it easy to do so. Nowadays, the download site has moved to mozilla.com which is very much targeted at "Real People", and .org is about evangelism and developer info, at least the first of which these designs reflect quite well. If they go overboard it's on the marketing speak and boldness, but certainly not on technical details and programmer jargon like the old mozilla.org did. That said, the .com vs .org distinction is probably confusing: They should just move Firefox to firefox.com and drop the Mozilla brand from it altogether.