Ian Grigg wrote:

Unfortunately, I don't think there are any retail
level suppliers of just browsers - presumably Netscape
no lists a price.

Indeed. The end-user browser market is commoditised. It's hard to make a buck (although Opera are trying.)


Whatever policy we decide, millions of people are still going to come to ftp.mozilla.org, download Mozilla or Firefox builds and start using them for secure sites. These people expect to be safe. By weight of numbers, and in terms of Mozilla Foundation focus, they are our customers.

Those that download Redhat for free do it on the
terms stated, and those that pay for it get a
presumably higher level of support.  Those that
are worried about security and can't configure
or otherwise manage their browser themselves can
presumably hunt around for a paid OS and get the
browser security package that comes with it.

Why should an OS and a browser be tied together in this way? What about Windows users who want an alternative browser?


I don't follow the line of argument that says "people aren't paying us for security therefore we shouldn't provide any."

Gerv
_______________________________________________
mozilla-crypto mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/mozilla-crypto

Reply via email to