In <news:[email protected]>, Rufus <[email protected]> wrote:
> »Q« wrote: > > In <news:[email protected]>, > > Rufus <[email protected]> wrote: > >> ...ok, so now we're lead back to "code sharing" and "conspiracy > >> theories"...which is it? > > > > How do we keep getting back here? I can't tell what conspiracy > > theories you're talking about. > > In that between Mozilla, Fire Fox, Goggle Chrome, Camino, Safari, et. > al. there are SO many things that look the same and/or function the > same. Which leads to the thought that many of these people are > obviously cooperating and collaborating. I don't see any evidence to support a conspiracy theory, just as I don't when I notice Chevrolets that look a lot like Fords. Also, as you're using a Mac, most browser vendors try to make their products follow Mac interface guidelines, which makes them look more similar than they otherwise would. > > AFAIK, SeaMonkey doesn't generate any revenue. Remember that what > > kicked off this part of the thread was Phil noting that SeaMonkey > > team cannot afford to hire people. > > Yes - and that's my point. Mozilla, Fire Fox, Goggle Chrome, Camino, > Safari, et. al. don't generate any revenue either - in that they are > give aways. In the case of Google and Apple, they have corporate > revenue streams and existing hires...so just what else does > Mozilla-corp DO that allows them to pay people, and why doesn't the SM > team do that? I'm giving up on your questions about how Mozilla generates revenue, since I don't think I could possibly make it clearer than the web pages you've already read. And without that, I don't know how to get into your other questions. -- »Q« /"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign \ / against html e-mail X <http://asciiribbon.org/> / \ _______________________________________________ support-seamonkey mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
