Thoughts on browsers (part 2)

[klhrevolution]

Thoughts on browsers (part 1) http://linuxoutlaws.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=761

I am not sure that I have made myself clear or not. And so to get my point across I will keep pushing till at least the issue can be out in the open allowing people to see the issue in full. I tried to make it clear that the recent move by firefox to start policing the web or taking proactive measures as some have pointed out is nothing more than rubbish.
We can not allow applications such as firefox to do this. It is something reminiscent of a move out of the microsoft playbook and it deserves to be booed as such.

If firefox default search can be lobbied and paid for (google) then why does it seem far fetched that the big ssl providers would lobby the browser ? Should I the small owner / operator of a website have to go through xyz company in order to get my ssl cert ? Or should I have choice ? And what if a popular browser shows a new user a warning or error page if I choose the latter ? Does this stifle my business ? Of course it does.

It has been through user experience that many of today's websites and applications even continue to exist! If people ten years ago had seen a warning page when they attempted to visit google.com do you think that would have had a negative impact on the direction google went ? Of course it would have!

All I can say is to make an issue of it and try to get firefox to reverse this decision or to use a different browser.

[Miko]

Check out the open voices podcast by Jim Zemlin of the Linux Foundation.
The latest Podcast interviews Mitchell Baker (Mozilla Boss) and gives her views on many of the points you raise.

[edythemighty]

But if FF is open source....