(This article is outdated. I may/may not agree with some/all of it. Regardless, don't bother arguing with me about it. Please read the new one: Mozilla the Marketing Nightmare).
Mozilla is a new, reinvented web browser that tries to out-do Internet Explorer, the current favorite of the web. However, as I have discovered, Mozilla is nothing but an attempt by mega-conglomerate AOL-Time Warner, the owner of Mozilla, to establish their primacy over the Internet in ways that would make all of Microsoft's monopoly law infringements seem rather trivial. The thing that disgusts me the most is not only that AOL-Time Warner tries to conquer the Internet by its clearly inferior browser, but that it tries to do it in a way that commits outright fraud against the very programmers who make the browser Mozilla. The next few items are accusations and the reasoning behind it. Some might seem silly or unimportant, so you do not have to agree me with on all of them to see the wreckage Mozilla is trying to do.
If you go to Mozilla's homepage, you will find their logo embedded with clear communist imagery. (Check out the evidence vault at end of this too, too). Is this a conspiracy? Probably not. But, it is trying to appeal to the whole idea of "all for the community," just as communism had done. However, I do not find this joke or appeal very funny. Just as we do not laugh about Hitler killing 6 million innocent people in the Holocaust, and even more civilians during his ruthless rampage through Europe which still can be seen to this day, we should not glorify a system that killed at least 100 million (yes... 100,000,000) and continues to oppress over a billion people. What I mean is, just as we do not laugh at Hitler and incorporate his racial purity ideas, we should not elevate communism's shameful ideas that were only good to stir people up with. However, all this is very ironic for Mozilla and even their mascot, the T-rex. Communism itself was nothing but a fleeting idea and I believe the same is true for Mozilla. It looks good, but its true core is rot and decay. And the T-rex... In Latin it means "tyrant lizard." Tyrant as in tyrant leader, or dictator. Just like the leaders of communism all were...Oh sweet irony!
The reason Mozilla is starting to become popular is due to the anti-Microsoft and pro-"community" mentalities of its users and especially programmers. The anti-Microsoft mentality dictates that one must always choose the non-Microsoft software, whether or not is actually better than Microsoft's product. The pro-"community" stand states that one must use software that is open to everyone to modify: software that is made by the collective community rather than a corporation. Software of this type is called open source, that is, you can modify it anyway you want without having to worry about much of copyright constraints of non-open source programs. (All you have to do with open source is give credit to the person who originally wrote it.
Mozilla prides itself on being "open source." However, as I have found out by reading Mozilla's "Licensing Agreement," this is not the case. Not even close. What open source should mean is that anybody could modify the open source files, and even reuse it fully in anyway they want. For Mozilla, open source means that a programmer could download the files and modify them in any way they want, however, they could not use it anyway they want. In fact, the only thing you could use it for is making Mozilla a better browser, without getting paid anything . Now in plain English: I could not download the "open source" files for Mozilla and then make a better browser called "Andras Browser." Now, why is this bad? After all, the programmers will make a better browser and a bunch of Mozilla clones will not flood the web. Read on...
The reason this is deception has to do with the owner of Mozilla, Netscape, the ousted favorite browser of the web. Because Netscape owns it, Mozilla gives all of its source code to Netscape so it can make the Netscape browser better. It can modify the source code of Mozilla in any way and add its own commercial features. However, Netscape is a "proprietary" browser, meaning that a corporation runs it and gets money off it. This is where fraud comes in. The work of volunteer programmers, who are not paid in any shape or form, is given to a for-profit corporation (Netscape) where they can then add any features that will no doubt make Netscape millions of dollars. Let me state differently: Mozilla fools volunteer programmers, who will never receive any compensation, by giving their hard-worked code to Netscape, which then can make as much money as it wants. Where I come from, this is called theft and stealing.
I bet some of you are pointing fingers to Microsoft for running Netscape off of the web. You might think that Netscape is some small, ideal company that the evil, power-hungry Microsoft has devoured. Well, I bet it will shock you to know that Netscape is owned by AOL-Time Warner, one of the biggest media companies in the world. AOLTW has assets in many magazines, publishing houses, cable systems, cable channels, internet services, movie studios, and recording companies. So, in conclusion, a multi-billion dollar company (about $165 billion at its highest level) exploits unpaid programmers to do its work. Surely out of all those billions, they could give a little spare change to their programmers. (At least Microsoft pays their programmers.) Also, just because your company is run by volunteers does not mean you can exploit them.
Although Mozilla claims to be "open source" it is not because its own Licensing Agreement sneakily tries to hide that all the source code made will be turned over to Netscape to make a commercial product. This is also copyright violation. Without compensation, the programmers will never get paid while Netscape will make all the money in the world off of their free, "volunteer" work. This basically the same as the point in the "Deception and Theft" paragraph: It is wrong morally and wrong legally to make money directly off of somebody who was never compensated for their work.
Mozilla also claims that its browser is the one that is most web standard compliant. Web standards refer to the up-to-date coding standards of the Internet. This means that as time moves along, browsers will be more efficient and capable of using newer types of languages and code. Translated to English: 5 years from now we will be able to do more on the Internet because of the web standards. However, as a person who runs this website, I can with more than enough confidence conclude that it is harder to code for Mozilla and that Mozilla has a lot less web standard features. For example, if you go to the my site with Mozilla, you will be redirected to a non-Internet Explorer page because Mozilla cannot handle any of the standards that it should.
Some people seem to think that open source is good for security reasons. However, the security problems with Mozilla is unbelievable. Some think that just because more people can try to figure out the problems with security in Mozilla that Mozilla will be safer. Although we have discussed that Mozilla is not really open source since it does not allow programmers to reuse the code, it is "open" enough to qualify for security problems. Let's look at a real world situation. We have two burglars who want to steal jewelry from a store. One of them works for the store and the other does not. Who will find it easier to break into the store? The one who works in the store since he probably knows how the security system works. Let's go back to Mozilla and suppose it has ten big security mistakes. Let's say Mozilla's volunteer programmers report nine of them. If a hacker or some other virulent person learns about all ten security mistakes, then one of them would still be open to problems. And these problems can include credit card theft, loss of personal information, and perhaps even access to your hard drive. With non-open source browsers, such as Internet Explorer, it is harder to exploit security problems since you do not know the actual make up of their security because their code is not open to the public.
Let me underscore this with another example. A country is fighting a war. It wants to see what problems it has with its military so it opens all sensitive files to the public. While most people will help their native country by reporting most of the problems, some will undoubtedly exploit these problems. In conclusion, Mozilla is a potential security bomb waiting to go off at anytime.
I believe that I will change only a few people's ideas on this after they have read this. After all, the only time you will listen to anyone is when you are in deep @#$%. Such as stolen credit cards or exposed hard drives. (I am not trying to scare anyone, as this type of theft can be accomplished across any browser. However, I personally would never submit any type of information over the Mozilla browser.) But the biggest problem does not come from possible security threats. It comes from the intent of Mozilla and its owner, AOL Time-Warner.
This big huge company strives for more monopolies than Microsoft would ever want. Currently, AOLTW has or is close to monopolies in at least 6 distinct fields.
The problem is not that it has so many interests. The problem is how can it have each of these 6 branches act in a way that does not promote the others in a biased way. It is in this that AOLTW has failed so miserably. Its magazines advertise its channels, while its channels advertise its magazine. This corporate narcissism, as I like to call it, promotes bias. For example, on CNN and Time magazine people who download music and software and automatically called pirates. There is no discussion about why people have a right to do this, but they are just pirates. (By the way, read my essay on why this "pirating" is actually legal and moral, located in the Stuf Archives.)
In final conclusion, I find AOLTW actions abhorrent and dismissible. Its intentions are clear: lord over all media and use these medias (Internet, magazines, TV) to promote itself. It will then use Mozilla to glue together these medias. The disgusting thing is that the people who are doing this (programmers at Mozilla) neither know about this nor are they actually getting paid for this. When using Mozilla think to your self: Does anybody want a world where AOLTW rules as tyrant (remember this ironic word?) king over all medias?
http://mozilla.org/party/1998/mozilla.gif
Communist imagery.
http://mozilla.org/party/2000/mozilla2.gif
Communist imagery.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/cool/giants/aoltimewarner.html
PBS's page showing the assets of AOLTW.
http://www.andkon.com
My site showing that even basic Internet standards are not followed by Mozilla.
http://www.mozilla.org
Mozilla's official site, logo shows communist imagery.
http://www.mozilla.org/start/1.0/guide/record.html
Mozilla's official page that tries to dodge its relationship
with AOL and Netscape. It says Mozilla is independent, while it primarily receives
money from Netscape. Yeah, Netscape just DONATES the money. Yeah right. They
want something in return.
http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/
Mozilla's page with the corrupt and copyright violating
licensing agreements.
http://www.andkon.com/stuf/mozilla/argument.html
Argument I had with my friend over Mozilla.
