Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 18th Dec 2009 17:28 UTC
Mozilla & Gecko clones "The Mozilla development community has rolled out the latest beta of its Firefox 3.6 browser. In addition to the usual round of bug fixes, Firefox 3.6 beta version 5, comes with a number of new features and performance enhancements. The browser offers the ability for users to easily reskin the browsers with a new visual theme. The new version can also run scripts asynchronously, which should speed load times of pages that have multiple scripts. The new release also aims to appease cutting-edge developers, with support for various new standards."
Thread beginning with comment 400671
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: chrome vs firefox
by sbergman27 on Tue 22nd Dec 2009 14:09 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: chrome vs firefox"
sbergman27
Member since:
2005-07-24

I can't see where it can be considered a fair and reasonable contract where the end user gets to pay for equipment and communications bandwidth for commercial interests to us in showing unwanted ads.

Sites like OSNews.com and LWN.net are hardly "commercial interests", lemur. But If you pay for bandwidth by the MB, I can see where you might prefer to pay the subscription fee for sites you frequent. But you wouldn't want to just freeload, would you, lemur?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: chrome vs firefox
by boldingd on Tue 22nd Dec 2009 17:41 in reply to "RE[4]: chrome vs firefox"
boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

Heh, actually, sometimes I do: I'm paying the all of $5.00 a month that a subscription to LWN costs. I think it's reasonable to ask the users of a website to support it, and I'd prefer to do so with a modest financial contribution rather than adds, if given the choice (at least for sites I'm going to frequent).

And I leave NoScript on all the time -- which doubles in many respects as an add-blocker, since it prevents flash content from executing.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: chrome vs firefox
by lemur2 on Wed 23rd Dec 2009 05:24 in reply to "RE[4]: chrome vs firefox"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"I can't see where it can be considered a fair and reasonable contract where the end user gets to pay for equipment and communications bandwidth for commercial interests to us in showing unwanted ads.

Sites like OSNews.com and LWN.net are hardly "commercial interests", lemur. But If you pay for bandwidth by the MB, I can see where you might prefer to pay the subscription fee for sites you frequent. But you wouldn't want to just freeload, would you, lemur?
"

I don't have any particular intent to freeload, but I still don't see any reason why large corporate interests should be able to freeload off my equipment and communications bandwidth costs in order to be able to place their adverts.

If I want their product, I will search for it. If what I find is good value (as determined by me), I will happily pay for it. I will tolerate inconspicuous, low-bandwidth, unobtrusive text links such as Google shows. I do not otherwise give any corporations permission to use my property for their advertising purposes.

Edited 2009-12-23 05:26 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: chrome vs firefox
by sbergman27 on Wed 23rd Dec 2009 12:09 in reply to "RE[5]: chrome vs firefox"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

I don't have any particular intent to freeload, but I still don't see any reason why large corporate interests should be able to freeload off my equipment and communications bandwidth costs in order to be able to place their adverts.

How about the fact that they are paying the costs for running the sites you freeload off of? I can understand, very well, not tolerating the flashing, dancing, gyrating ads. But the current arrangement under Chrome allows the starving admins and editors of the site, who's content you are currently freeloading, to pay the bills without your having to actually suffer the ads. Balking under such circumstances is just pathetic.

And don't bother trying to evoke images of "large commercial interests" when the topic here is clearly small, non-profit, mom and pop discussion sites which you find enjoyable and useful, but don't mind ripping off anyway. In case you haven't noticed, OSNews is not Exxon Corp.

Reply Parent Score: 2