(This article is outdated.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).
A lot things have happened since my last major anti-Mozilla effort/essay in July. I can without a doubt say that I was quite wrong in a quite a lot of areas. However, my intention with the two former essays was not to pinpoint exact problems but rather push out several interesting ideas arising from my suspicion of Mozilla and mainly its financier, AOL Time Warner (AOLTW). From this stabbing thru the pitch dark, most of my ideas have been discarded and proved wrong. It is what remains moot and hazy that this essay tries to resolve. I doubt this will be my last Mozilla commentary, however, I have tried to make this more focused than the previous two.
The last time I attempted to talk about Mozilla and web compliance, I was quite wrong. However, the issue has come back in a different form. Namely, why does mozilla.org not validate properly? A simple would do wonders. However, that correction would spawn concerns about why Mozilla, the rightly self-proclaimed browser of standards, is stuck back in HTML 4.0 and why Mozilla is not using XHTML. Other documents throughout the site don't validate at all. Although this minor issue is not worth any more time, it is food for thought. I would agree though that Mozilla should spend all of its time on making a better browser rather than wasting time on smaller issues such as this. But then again, all you have to do is copy and paste the above encoding.
I am called immature by the very same people who turn around and do the same as they accuse me of. Take the case of Netscape programmer Daniel Glazman who tried to talk to me over AIM. He argued in a childish, you know the "Anna Nicole Smith" type way. Perhaps, he tried lower me to his level to expose me or something, but anyways I could not drag an intelligent sentence out of him. Another case involved the defilation of my former guestbook. Someone named "pro-Mozilla" managed to use the javscript:history.go(-1) trick which effectively shut down my HTML-enabled guestbook. While only a bit malicious, this is uncalled for and quite puerile. Other personal attacks of snot, troll, and numerous other names further degrades Mozilla to be looked upon in a negative way, just based on the highly partisan manner of the personal attacks.
In past essays, I have tried to make the case that Mozilla's imagery is sickening and unworthy of spewing around by Mozilla. However, I feel I must start over with the argument as some people still do not even believe that Mozilla uses imagery reminiscent of elements of communist propaganda. First, the imagery that is under attack is the following:
The clear cut communist references to these are overt: the red color, red star, factories, and the hero-workers saluting. It is not the individual elements that comprise the communist imagery, it is all the elements combined. In other words, a star by itself does not speak of communism. In fact, the well-known communist star was reputed to have been stolen from the American icon. Factories do not speak of communism. Neither does the color red speak of communism. However, when fused together, these three elements do become a clear representation of communism. After all, it is this same type of kitsch artwork that was used during Stalin's regime. I can only guess as to the reasons why Mozilla chooses to have this artwork. However, I am absolutely certain that using communism, the longest-reigning icon of tyranny and oppression in the 20th century (and continuing strong into the 21st), as symbolic of some other "higher" meaning is morally irresponsible and foremost historically incorrect.
Some of those who actually accept that Mozilla uses communist imagery usually strike back by explaining that if Marx saw what happened to "his" ideas, he would roll over in his grave. These apologists for communism should know that Marx's own life was sad and pathetic. He never lived up to his "great" ideals. Apart from his idiotic, completely backwards ideas (farmer/worker utopia and religious abolishment, just to mention two completely gullible and undemocratic ideas), he plagiarized the rest from ironically religious Christian, Jewish, and other earlier sources. For example, guess what root "commune" and "communism" share. His ideas were not new, as they have been actually lived out (of course in a much less perverted, aggravated, and involuntary ways) in Christian monasteries and small Jewish sects centuries and millennia before. His writings too were plagiarized from sources that were written long before, one of which, Utopia by Saint Thomas More, disproved Marx's communism centuries before Marx himself proposed it.
What makes it wrong for me to go down some street and start saluting Hitler? He murdered millions and started World War II? Well guess who also murdered millions, even more than Hitler, and assisted Hitler in starting the war? It's Comrade Stalin, Hitler's best friend from 1939 to 1942! If Hitler is despised on account of his genocidal rampage, so should Stalin and the rest of his murderous chums. Since Stalin, along with all the rest of the line of murders, come to represent communism, why does Mozilla have the guts to display the imagery intertwined with these killer regimes? Time has come for recognizing that communism in any shape or form does not deserve to be casually spewed around as "image."
And what else is this imagery supposed to stand for? Is there anything else that the images could stand for? Marx was never popular during his own life so there was no communist imagery to speak of then. The specific communist imagery that is symbolized in Mozilla was made from the advent of communism in Russia to around the 60's. The only thing these images stand for are the perversions of Lenin, Stalin, and his best student, Mao. These images only represent the creators, namely the murders and their descendants of the ideology of communism. In that light, even if Marx was right, how does Mozilla dare use images that are have been solely produced by these genocidal lunatic butchers?
The case against the use of communist imagery is even far stronger than the case against the use of swastikas which have been used as religious symbols of Buddhists, shaman religions of Native Americans, and yes even Jews. (It was very surprising for me to see a Mediterranean synagogue with the Star of David and swastika side by side.) Despite this historic usage, I don't think anyone of these groups who read a history book would actually use the swastika today. The evil that came to represent the swastika is greater than the good from it. So then why use the communist star and the portrayal of the typical hero-worker and such when they don't even have historical usage or significance? Why does Mozilla dare use imagery symbolizing perverted people who would be in mental hospitals if caught early? Is it "cool," just like it is to wear Nazi swastika armbands?
And just to see bucket of sand on the peachy beach of real communist ideology, please see http://www.podval.org/~sds/commies.html
Perhaps Mozilla should call a graphic design contest to make new logos and images for its site and browser as these images are unacceptably sickening. The image and likeness of murder and genocide does not deserve to be the cuddly mascot of a browser to which millions of people are exposed.
This topic is yet another holdover from the previous essay that goes unresolved. Last time, I stated that if AOL were to use a Mozilla-based browser as the AOL browser, it would in fact assisting in a fraud of about $10 billion a year. (For a quick review, the figure comes from the 35 million AOL customers plus the 3 million CompuServe customers. This comes out to about 38 million × $25 per month × 12 months per year = $11.4 billion. Now of course, the billions of dollars would not be solely due to a browser change but AOLTW still gets away with a free browser leaving the many who worked for it uncompensated.) This is fraud because AOL is potentially going to get a browser that it could use to lure and keep millions of customers while leaving mozilla.org with really nothing in return.
Many could argue that people know this and the fact that Netscape is affiliated with mozilla.org is a publicly known fact. That's true and will be addressed later in this essay, but it does show how unfair and undemocratic open source can be. I mean let's be honest. How many non-commercial browsers developed from the Mozilla browser are there? Just a few, and the innovation is still a monopoly of Mozilla. So far, all these non-commercial browsers are dependant on Mozilla. No matter how many releases it has, the Mozilla offspring does not develop on its own but rather still adapts the newer and newer Mozilla code for its future releases. There is nothing morally wrong about that, but it shows how only projects rolling in money can expect to go somewhere. Innovation is risked being hampered by a huge bureaucracy.
However, a new type of fraud arises from the idea of innovation and another huge bureaucracy. Simply put, why doesn't Netscape release its own browser's code to the public? I thought all derivative material was to be open sourced under the same license as Mozilla Public License. By legal trickery of the Netscape Public License 1.1, Netscape (and then ultimately AOLTW) jerks the Netscape browser out of the license for two whole years! What a hypocritical outrage! While if the enthusiastic C++ programming squad at andkon.com were to make a Mozilla-based browser named "Hail Andras, He's A Hero for All" (HAHAHA for short), andkon.com would have to release the source of the HAHAHA browser since it is a derivative work. Now Netscape comes along, obviously solely dependant on Mozilla for making its own browser, and says "Well, now that Netscape is no longer teetering on bankruptcy, let us make it as lucrative for us as possible." Under the terms on NPL 1.1, Netscape would not have to release its code for two years. And what good is the outdated code then? This Netscape Exception Clause (Amendment V in the NPL 1.1) , as it is rightfully called, gives a back door exit for code to the potential AOL browser, which then never has to be open sourced. Netscape is the get away car from the Mozilla bank robbery done by AOL in search of a new browser. Now perhaps I am just misunderstanding something but what I gather from Netscape Exception Clause is that Netscape code doesn't have to be open sourced. You can be the judge:
V. Use of Modifications and Covered Code by Initial Developer.
V.1. In General. The obligations of Section 3 apply to Netscape, except to the extent specified in this Amendment, Section V.2 and V.3.
V.2. Other Products. Netscape may include Covered Code in products other than the Netscape's Branded Code which are released by Netscape during the two (2) years following the release date of the Original Code, without such additional products becoming subject to the terms of this License, and may license such additional products on different terms from those contained in this License.
V.3. Alternative Licensing. Netscape may license the Source Code of Netscape's Branded Code, including Modifications incorporated therein, without such Netscape Branded Code becoming subject to the terms of this License, and may license such Netscape Branded Code on different terms from those contained in this License.
And by the way, how can Netscape just amend their license? After the source code for Netscape Communicator was released in 1998, Netscape's role of exerting influence over the code technically is the same as anyone else's. Sure, they still contribute more to Mozilla than any other group, but this does not give them the right to change the rules in the middle of the game. What would happen to the HAHAHA browser if it made its own license proclaiming that it no longer was going to be open source? Is Netscape's theft of Mozilla code fair or even legal? (No, it's not fair, but yes it is legal because AOLTW is a multi-billion dollar empire.) Netscape and AOLTW have no legal basis whatsoever for changing the NPL to conform to their current business model. What they are doing is harmful to open source and is technically quite illegal.
All of this begs the question: Are the hassles and clearly unfair legal manipulations by AOLTW worth the general good done by Mozilla? Absolutely not; and yes, the future is bleak.
I am asserting that even if Mozilla seems to be contributing to the general good on web, for every line of code that Mozilla writes, Netscape and AOLTW benefits twice as much. This means that no matter how resourceful and successful Mozilla gets, the profit and success AOLTW receives is always more. This relationship could still be symbiotic, where it doesn't hurt Mozilla or it actually benefits each partner in varying degrees. It clearly isn't. AOLTW is a publicly-held corporation. Its only reason for existing is making its shareholders money. The shareholders do not care a rat's ass about open source, especially now that their stock tumbled due to AOL's carefully orchestrated coup. It doesn't care if the web were made of yucky proprietary tags, it cares about how much money it takes in. If today the plan to make money is Mozilla, they use Mozilla. They will turn on a dime if they have to. Teaming up with a corporation that doesn't care about its partner's goals is a fast way to failure. The paradox of an open source project partnering up with a solely for-profit corporation is ludicrous. The goals of each are complete opposites and painfully conflicting. Mozilla cares about "abstract" things such as standards and compliance which are not money related. The non-money driven goals of Mozilla clearly hamper the monetary goals of AOLTW in the long-run. Will AOLTW dump Mozilla? Probably not. But it will, as it already has, to try to squeeze as much out Mozilla as possible. The shackles on Mozilla imposed by AOLTW isn't a necessary evil, it will be the cause of its downfall. No, not a collapse like Enron or WorldCom, but a slow disintegration of all past ideals.
Is Mozilla contributing to a better web when we still see the naive and completely incorrect ads of AOL touting its service to be family-friendly. "GEE, as a parent I am concerned that Junior is looking at wild porn, which is obviously everywhere. I love how AOL's spying parental controls makes me and my kids feel secure." That's a pretty damn accurate paraphrase from the new AOL 8.0 ads. When AOL will start using Mozilla in its browser, Mozilla will be the main arsonist in the fueling of this completely backwards thinking. Remember that it was AOL itself who created the idea of a "shield" for parents who wanted a "safe" Internet experience. I mean come on! Type in a dirty word and .com and "bad" website comes up! Instead of looking into the future, AOL is still spewing this inaccurate crap to recruit its customers in its all but depleted pyramid scheme. But then again, what do you expect from a corporation that advertises instant messaging and google.com's search engine (both of which are free by the way) as part of the grandiose AOL experience? Other fun AOL paraphrases: "It's like having a verbal chat electronically, like WOW! Technology these days!" "AOL x.0 [insert current version] is better than ever with features you never thought you needed!" "Since AOL assumes I am a moron, their customer support is very patient which in the mid-90's was run by free unpaid volunteers." Free unpaid volunteers, when have I come across this phrase before? The past should teach us something, shouldn't it?
Why are AOL's fumbles important to Mozilla? Apart from the non-innovation that takes place, AOL will become the way people perceive Mozilla. When AOL 9.0 or 10.0 rolls around, does Mozilla want to be associated with phrases like "AOL has instant messaging" or "AOL's searches are extra fast with google"? AOL will be the way people get a glimpse at Mozilla, not a pretty one at that, since Mozilla makes no effort of spreading its browser around. After all, Mozilla is not for end users?. Apart from AOL, Netscape also showcases Mozilla technology. Instead of having a company for anti-porn and insecure parents, we now have a company dedicated to creating the biggest browser possible. And when I say biggest, I mean as fat and over bloated as it can get. With most people still using dial-up, the 30 MB Netscape download is not pretty. Another thing that isn't pretty is the "spamicons" and "spamprograms" that come with this bloated hour-after-hour download. No, I don't want to sign up for AOL or any other idiotic service. Is this the way Mozilla wants to portray itself? Why doesn't Mozilla release a browser that targets end users? Does Netscape and AOLTW forbid that?
The only way Mozilla can be true to its goals is if it completely breaks free from Netscape/AOLTW domination. It will be able to pursue its goals without having to do any of AOLTW's bitching. Imagine a world where Mozilla can be downloaded by "end users" by the millions. Imagine schools, giant companies, and the rest jumping aboard the Mozilla bandwagon.
I do not buy the "Mozilla really needs AOLTW's money" argument. Do servers that pump 100's of GB cost that much money? Netscape will still be able to pursue its own goals as Mozilla still would be open source. The brings down the "Mozilla needs the Netscape programmers" argument since Netscape still could do whatever it wanted with the open source code and I am sure those Netscape programmers (and programmers from different companies for that matter) would still volunteer for Mozilla since they will, as they do now, believe that Mozilla is essential to bring change to the web.
There is hope that intelligence might lurk inside other Mozilla volunteers:
"This browser sucks. Mozilla has one of the best imaginable back ends with one of the most lousy front ends ever created. And as long as Netscape is in control of the UI, things won't improve -- the missing Home button in the main toolbar proves it. And now they WONTFIXed bug 48820 too... presumably because the much more intuitive name "Bookmarks Bar" wouldn't fit well with the AOL icons they put in it in Netscape 7. A UI fork was rumored but never came. I've had enough of Netscape domination. I'm outta here."
Don't believe an actual Mozillian wrote that? http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3D905236.2010306%40jonasj.dk
If you have questions about this article, please email me at andraskonya@hotmail.com or contact me via AIM (don't worry I use AIM+ from big-o-software.com) at kickasscomputer. If your response is purely emotional, illogical, or only a kind "YOU SUCK" please refrain from contacting me. If you want to calm yourself down, please go play some games at the free and ad-less arcade.
