Download Firefox, Feed a Red Panda 90
KenW writes "Mozilla has launched a new marketing campaign to promote Firefox: adopting red pandas and putting them on live webcams. The company wants to underline the fact that the red panda is the mascot for its open source browser via a new section on its site called Firefox Live. It's clear that Mozilla is trying to think of new ways to promote its browser ahead of the launch of Firefox 4. The company has been struggling recently as Firefox steadily loses share to Google Chrome."
Re: (Score:3)
Red panda - eats, shoots, and leaves.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
He only needs a kitty or two a day
Everytime you download... (Score:4, Funny)
Bah, that's probably another urban legend (Score:5, Funny)
Bah, that's probably another urban legend.
I mean like back when they told me that each time I masturbate Jesus kills a kitten. Let me tell you I put some serious effort into it, and the stray cat situation around here seemed entirely unaffected ;)
Re: (Score:1)
It's Firefox, not fox. A fox is a fox, a firefox is another name for a red panda.
The panda is a lie (Score:4, Informative)
No, it isn't. The first literal translation of the Chinese glyphs for red panda (in a dialect that doesn't distinguish the red fox from the red panda) to "fire fox" was done long after Firefox came about.
It was called Firefox because the earlier name, Firebird, had too many well-defended trademarks. From Ben Goodger's log in 2004, courtesy of the wayback machine:
"The process began in late November. Mozilla's Chief Architect Brendan Eich had made a commitment to resolve the dispute over Firebird's code name (which was being widely adopted as the browser's actual name) by the 0.8 milestone. Over the span of about 2 weeks a small group at The Mozilla Foundation including Catherine Corre, Bart Decrem, Brendan Eich, Chris Hofmann and myself pored over lists of over two hundred names, many gleaned from the Phoenix to Firebird transition. We reached a point where we had a handful that were the best of that lot, but none of us was entirely satisfied. Searches of the United States Patent and Trademark Office website showed that all of the options we had picked up were potential minefields from a trademark point of view. We refocused our energy on names beginning with "Fire-" in an attempt to preserve the link with the past, and so that we could retain some of our evocative flame imagery.
Ultimately it was Jason Kersey of MozillaZine that came up with the winner. I don't think he was serious with his suggestion, but the naming group liked it well enough. A scan of the USPTO database was positive. We filed for a trademark registration in the United States in December 2003."
Note that from the start of using the name Firefox, the logo has always been of a fox, not a panda. The panda is a backport, possibly to distance themselves from the foxfire culture.
Re: (Score:2)
And let's not forget that Phoenix came before Firebird. Of course, the BIOS company took issue with that once it's beta started gaining momentum...
I still remember the frustration I had when it went from Phoenix to Firebird and Firebird to Firefox. I had been telling people to install the browser (and installing it myself on their computers during troubleshooting sessions), but their name changes kinda hurt their "reliability" in the eyes of new users.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not call 4.0 FirePanda?
Re: (Score:2)
Not only is it less catchy simply because it's more syllables, but they would have to go through the same name process again, including searching the trademark databases in lots of countries, twice.
Plus, haven't there been enough name changes already?
NCSA Netsite -> Mosaic -> Netscape Navigator -> Netscape Communicator -> Phoenix -> Firebird -> Firefox isn't enough?
(Not to mention alternative names, like IceWeasel?)
When I hear Firefox (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
They look tasty.... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the local parks prohibit taking their squirrels, and the ones in the forest are diseased.
What makes you think that the ones in the parks are any less diseased than the forest ones? Are you sure that the parks prohibit the taking of "their" squirrels. Because if they assert property rights over the squirrels, then they also assume responsibility for every squirrel bite, every purloined sandwich, and every (allegedly) spread bacterium. A little bit of judicious enquiry ("I've been bitten by one of your squirrels in your park ; who do I send the writ to?") and I'm sure they'll rapidly assert that
This is ridiculous. (Score:1)
Struggling? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That's if you're talking large numbers. There are certainly smaller numbers who are leaving FF in favor of Chrome because of problems with Firefox.
An example would be the old default settings problem in the file handling.
If you click on a direct link to a CSV file and specify a program to open it with (e.g. OpenOffice Calc) and check the "always perform this action" checkbox it will work in the future.
But if Firefox receives such a file as a header attachment the same setting will be ignored.
This is due to
Re: (Score:2)
That's if you're talking large numbers. There are certainly smaller numbers who are leaving FF in favor of Chrome because of problems with Firefox.
Or because of speed. For certain ajax-heavy apps, Firefox can be rather sluggish.
In my case, it's a problem with Firefox, though -- it uses its own font rendering engine which isn't DPI-aware. Firefox simply doesn't work well on high DPI displays. I have to go in the prefs and change the font settings for multiple fonts for each and every locale I use, every time I switch displays.
That it also eats up a huge part of the screen real estate for the menu + toolbar + bookmarks bar + tabs + status bar is anot
Re:Struggling? (Score:4, Informative)
FF4 will be released in Q1, it solves all these issues.
Re: (Score:2)
I personally think Chrome is pretty buggy. It hangs and crashes a lot, not just tabs and breaks TCP-connections before stuff has been downloaded.
Where Firefox would have loaded the page just fine, Chrome would not load all the elements in the page.
Most of the time a refresh would solve that, it is not a server or network problem.
What is the use of loading a page faster if it doesn't load the whole page ?
Also it doesn't have the tools/extensions I need.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"There are certainly smaller numbers who are leaving FF in favor of Chrome because of problems with Firefox."
Their are also certainly other parts of the world where Firefox is increasing in marketshare, what is your point ?
It's smaller number.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the number of users, it's the amount of income. From things like embedded browsers and purchased support. Which, from what I can tell, isn't doing as well as the competition.
Re: (Score:2)
Err, Chrome is eating into Firefox, not IE. The IE users are computer illiterates who think the blue buttons means "the internet."
Right now, Chrome is an impressive piece of software. Soon they'll ship a built-in PDF viewer (goodbye Adobe exploits) and have started sandboxing Flash. Its also fast and stable.
Firefox is the current IE6. Its bloaty, slow, and mismanaged (no h.264 for html5). Of course you may disagree with that, but even as a loyal Firefox user since the days of Phoenix I'm really tempted to
Shiny new toy syndrome (Score:5, Interesting)
I think one of the reasons Chrome is affecting Firefox is the "Shiny new toy syndrome" and FF lack of willingness to support business needs.
If using Chrome becomes as "cool" as it was when Firefox started, then Firefox will be in trouble.
On the business needs side, Firefox is still stalling on:
-an official MSI package for Windows platform (BTW: If FF MSI cannot auto-update, corps will love it more. It's a control thing...)
-official, built-in, GPO support
-official, built-in automated add-on installation
On the JavaScript side, however, FF is doing pretty good lately: http://arewefastyet.com/ [arewefastyet.com]
Re: (Score:1)
I dislike chrome (actually Chromium).
It's hard for me to say why exactly but there are certain annoyances, like closing the whole window when I close a tab, or not having a convenient way to access bookmarks, or inability to arrange the "opera speeddial" clone the way I like, and so on.
I think I'll stick with Mozilla Netscape or Firefox or SeaMonkey for now.
Re: (Score:2)
Is Mozilla Netscape seriously still around? I could have sworn the split off was the creation of FireFox (or Phoenix, from memory).
Re: (Score:2)
Mozilla Netscape is still useful, but will soon be obsolete due to age (two years). SeaMonkey is its closest replacement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I recently switched to Chrome because it DOESN'T creep its way up to the 2 gig memory usage mark after awhile like Firefox has recently been doing on my machine. It had nothing to do with how shiny Chrome is.
Re: (Score:2)
I dislike chrome (actually non-google Chromium).
It's hard for me to say why exactly but there are certain annoyances, like closing the whole window when I close the last tab, or not having a convenient way to save bookmarks, or inability to arrange the "opera speed dial" clone the way I like, and so on.
I think I'll stick with Mozilla Netscape or Firefox or SeaMonkey for now.
Not really (Score:3)
The company has been struggling recently as Firefox steadily loses share to Google Chrome.
Near as I can tell, Firefox market share has been at a standstill. Chrome has grown at around the pace IE has dropped. Whether that means users have gone IE -> Chrome or IE -> Firefox and Firefox -> Chrome is a bit open, but they're not losing. However with Chrome in the 10-15% range you have to ask how long they'll keep backing Firefox and just go all out on developing Chrome.
Re: (Score:2)
Google backs Firefox because Firefox uses Google as the default search engine. If Google stops backing Firefox, Firefox may switch to another default search engine, and Google would lose money because its ads will get fewer hits.
Besides, if what Google wants is strong browsers for which to develop complex applications, the best way to achieve that is through competition between differing browsers. Chrome must improve because there are some things that Firefox does better, and Firefox must improve because th
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting that you don't even mention IE.
Re: (Score:2)
Well if they drop it completely. But I assume what they get paid is related to their market share or hits generated, if Google can move 1% from Firefox to Chrome they pay "themselves" instead of paying Mozilla and that's money saved. And they get people using a Google product strengthening their brand, while Mozilla is someone else's brand. They also have the freedom to direct development and link Chrome harder to Google services in ways Mozilla might not accept, like pushing H.264 support for the video tag
Re: (Score:1)
I think this is their main reason to back Firefox.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Probably because Ask and Yahoo no longer run their own search engines. They use Bing on the backend.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
However with Chrome in the 10-15% range you have to ask how long they'll keep backing Firefox and just go all out on developing Chrome.
I bet Google don't care if Chrome+FF=biggest browser or just Chrome=biggest browser.
What Google want is stable browsers that evolve to the better, not backwards closed unstable IE6.
The more choice the users have to see their ads, the more ads the users will see and the more money Google will make.
My bet on why they started Chrome is that FF needed competition so FF6=IE6 don't happen. That is why I think Google will continue to backing FF.
I have always loved FF but Chrome are so much better today (that will
Re: (Score:2)
Copy and Paste Anyone? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"then you hate endangered animals..."
I LOVE endangered animals. Well, given the right condiments.
not Chrome (Score:2)
To me Chrome is a cluster fuck of strange software design so the FF guys lost me to Opera.
Opera is faster, more stable and it allows me to place the tabs on the side of the screen instead of the top.
NoScript would be nice but I heard that something similar is in the works and until then I use site specific configuration to keep the really annoying ads at bay.
FF was nice when we had a gaping hole in the browser market but that hole has been plugged a while ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Ironically, Opera has lost me to Chrome recently, and that after 9 years of being an avid Opera users. I just got sick of seeing too many broken websites (especially AJAX-enabled ones), and too many crashes. As it is, Chrome dev releases crash less on me than Opera stable I've been using.
The other issue is their interaction with the community. Opera does not have a public bug tracker at all - there is a form to fill, and it assigns a ticket number, but there's no way to track what is going on about it after
Screw the Pandas (Score:2)
I'd rather feed hungry people right now.
I'll be sticking with FF. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'll be sticking with FF. (Score:4, Insightful)
I stick with FF because I like it and I'm not really interested in something else.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sticking with Firefox. I trust the Mozilla Foundation more than I trust Google.
I'll stick with that bloated piece of shit memory hog Firefox that I usually kill from the task manager because the extensions give me capabilities I don't find in other browsers. I have no loyalty to or trust for any of the companies. Ever since they removed the ability to switch off "awesome bar" without an extension because THEY think they have the right to dictate how I should browse and what I should want, the Firefox team have totally lost any confidence or love I had for the product. In fact I don't
Re: (Score:2)
I stick to Firefox because the Chrome devs show a complete disregard for the Linux platform and its conventions by refusing to support middle-click loading of URLs:
http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=11612 [google.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Chrome/Chromium is being developed and marketed to work on PCs and smart devices. Guess which miniscule marketshare OS doesn't follow the conventions of the entire rest of the market and won't be supported by Chrome/Chromium devs because this OS uses ass-backwards "conventions".
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what you mean by "entire rest of the market" but Mac OS never had a convention for middle-clicking insofar as it barely had conventions for right-clicking for the longest time so I don't know what you mean by "follow the conventions" since all 3 platforms had different behaviors regarding the matter.
Or do you think The Windows Way should be the only way? Is that what you meant?
What?!? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you can't love and take care of an animal, don't bother having one. I guess that goes for human children as well.
But, children are animals. At least, they're not protozoans and they're not plants or fungi. So unless you've got some other classification than I've read, children are animals. Like cockroaches and adult humans.
Hmmm. I ask myself - are there any organisms which could move between "kingdoms" (in appearance, if not in biological reality) through development? I know that tunicates (chordates, like us, if not vertebrates) for a long time had their sessile adult forms described as unusual corals while their la