«

Nathan Mercer wrote:
> Have A Nice Cup of Tea wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 01 May 2006 22:12:54 -0700, Nathan Mercer wrote:
>>
>>> Exactly, IE7 supports OpenSearch
>> Ah - the Nathanbot contradicts.
>>
>> Micro$oft could, if it wanted to (which it clearly doesn't) set up the
>> "search" functionality to ask users to choose which search engine they
>> want to use - with no default setting pre-chosen.
>
> Did you read the blogs post?
> MSN is NOT the default, here is no default built into IE7. IE7`
> respects the users previous IE autosearch setting
>
> "We thought the best way for IE7 to do what the user wants is to honor
> the user's autosearch setting from IE6. This setting is
> well-documented and has been in use for many years. It is a good
> indicator of user intent. While some sources claim that this setting
> favors MSN, the data we saw from independent research companies like
> comScore indicates that almost three-quarters of the autosearch queries
> went to search providers like AOL, Google, and Yahoo, not MSN.
> Independently, representatives of Yahoo! suggested using the user's
> IE6 autosearch setting. Additionally, I've seen a lot of pleasant
> surprise from users in comments on the IEBlog, Digg, and even Slashdot
> that the search box in IE7 actually reflects their individual search
> provider of choice, further validating this decision."
>
> http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2006/02/10/529950.aspx

Just for cupofsick's benefit
Firefox defaults to Google.
It doesn't ask!!!!

Don Hills wrote:
> In article < .com>,
> "Nathan Mercer" <> wrote:
>
>> There have been various articles floating around suggesting how Google
>> might pay DELL fees approaching US$1 billion over three years for
>> distribution and defaults on their PCs.
>
> It's big business then. Assuming the suggested fee covers more than just the
> search default, and assuming it's enough bigger than Microsoft's offer to
> Dell for them be tempted, do you think Microsoft will try and top the
> offer?
>
>> I personally find it hyocritical that Google wants Microsoft to ask
>> consumers to make a conscious choice about search providers when Google
>> has not demanded that Firefox make consumers do similar choices in that
>> browser.
>
> Google don't own Firefox, but I do see your point. I'd have to find out
> exactly why Google is the default for Firefox. At the moment I assume it's
> mainly from a desire to offer what is currently the best engine. I'm not at
> all surprised that Google has complained, though - I believe it's exactly
> what Microsoft would have done if the positions were reversed.


Google pays Mozilla money to have Google the default search engine in
Firefox.

On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 14:32:43 +1200, SchoolTech wrote:

>Don Hills wrote:
>> In article < .com>,
>> "Nathan Mercer" <> wrote:
>>
>>> There have been various articles floating around suggesting how Google
>>> might pay DELL fees approaching US$1 billion over three years for
>>> distribution and defaults on their PCs.
>>
>> It's big business then. Assuming the suggested fee covers more than just the
>> search default, and assuming it's enough bigger than Microsoft's offer to
>> Dell for them be tempted, do you think Microsoft will try and top the
>> offer?
>>
>>> I personally find it hyocritical that Google wants Microsoft to ask
>>> consumers to make a conscious choice about search providers when Google
>>> has not demanded that Firefox make consumers do similar choices in that
>>> browser.
>>
>> Google don't own Firefox, but I do see your point. I'd have to find out
>> exactly why Google is the default for Firefox. At the moment I assume it's
>> mainly from a desire to offer what is currently the best engine. I'm not at
>> all surprised that Google has complained, though - I believe it's exactly
>> what Microsoft would have done if the positions were reversed.
>
>
>Google pays Mozilla money to have Google the default search engine in
>Firefox.

Yep ... "pays money" is more like "totally funds" - including the
lead developer's salary!

Considering the China/Google thing - is Google any better than
Microsoft?

I think Firefox is an excellent browser, but the tie-in with Google
does worry me.

Adam.

On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 15:08:38 +1200, Adam wrote:

> I think Firefox is an excellent browser, but the tie-in with Google
> does worry me.

There is no tie-in. If Google started to dictate to the developers then
they are perfectly free to take their GPL'd code and move it into another
project - just like Joomla did.

Free code will always be Free.


MaHogany

--
"The key benefit of open technologies such as open source software is
freedom of choice."

MaHogany wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 15:08:38 +1200, Adam wrote:
>
>> I think Firefox is an excellent browser, but the tie-in with Google
>> does worry me.
>
> There is no tie-in. If Google started to dictate to the developers then
> they are perfectly free to take their GPL'd code and move it into another
> project - just like Joomla did.
>
> Free code will always be Free.
>
>
> MaHogany
>

Firefox isn't GPL code

On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 16:55:41 +1200, shannon wrote:

> Firefox isn't GPL code

Actually, true. It's released under the Mozilla licence which is, IIRC,
GPL compatible.


MaHogany

--
"The key benefit of open technologies such as open source software is
freedom of choice."

MaHogany wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Jun 2006 16:55:41 +1200, shannon wrote:
>
>> Firefox isn't GPL code
>
> Actually, true. It's released under the Mozilla licence which is, IIRC,
> GPL compatible.
>
>
> MaHogany
>

The GPL is more restrictive