On Tue, 9 Aug 2005 20:14:26 -0400 "John J. Foster" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Even "IF" only one of those allegations are true, I'm disappointed in > Mozilla's choices. They were, until a few days ago, "non-profit". Google > may be the best general purpose search engine out there right now, but > "IF" Mozilla made it the default for cash, I have a problem with that. If > Mozilla knows that a Google search deposits cookies from sites never > visited, I have a problem with that. > So, I checked and it seems that Firefox has Google as the default search engine. But it lets me change that search engine to Yahoo and even add search engines. And it saves my preference. And you're saying that taking money to continue to support development with the return of having Google as the default is bad? Even though the end user can still tailor that default? > IF anything in that article is true, and you think that that type of > underhandedness (is that a word?) and deception is OK, fine. I don't. > What's underhanded about advertising? That's all it is. The end user is not locked in to a specific search engine. Underhanded is locking the search engine choice after taking money, not rotating a specific engine to the top as a pre-configured default. Bob -- - Are you living in the real world? - -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
