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 400805
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: chrome vs firefox
by sbergman27 on Wed 23rd Dec 2009 12:09 UTC 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

RE[7]: chrome vs firefox
by boldingd on Wed 23rd Dec 2009 19:10 in reply to "RE[6]: chrome vs firefox"
boldingd Member since:
2009-02-19

You know, if the advertiser pays for adds that aren't displayed, then the advertiser is getting ripped off, and it's entirely possible that the company trying to advertise their product is also just a li'l, sympathetic Mom and Pop, not a huge, unsympathetic MegaCorp. Downloading the add and not displaying it is not a perfect, egalitarian solution: somebody's still getting screwed, it's just someone you don't care about.

But when you talk about ad-blocking in terms of moral imperatives and the life-and-death of websites, I think I can safely say that we're dealing with some pretty inflated rhetoric.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: chrome vs firefox
by sbergman27 on Wed 23rd Dec 2009 22:38 in reply to "RE[7]: chrome vs firefox"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

You know, if the advertiser pays for adds that aren't displayed, then the advertiser is getting ripped off, and...

Of course, the right thing to do is not use an ad blocker at all. But people *do* want to use ad blockers. And so they invent ways to justify that. Just the way they justify it whenever they want to take something without paying for it, and they know that no one can stop them.

I happen to think that an unwillingness even to have ads transferred but not displayed is particularly pathetic.

But when you talk about ad-blocking in terms of moral imperatives and the life-and-death of websites, I think I can safely say that we're dealing with some pretty inflated rhetoric.

I'm surprised that you would say such a thing, since:

1. I never said anything about moral imperatives. It's a matter of ethics and practical reality.

2. The life and death of sites like this one very literally do hinge upon ad revenue.

Or did you think that there was some sort of Website Fairy that paid the bills for the sites you visit?

Edited 2009-12-23 22:40 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2