Talk:Mozilla

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1 Mozilla vs Mozzilla
2 Histories merged
3 Confusing page
4 Tax Evasion Rumors
5 mozilla foundation and suite work, future tense
6 Mozilla Application Suite section
7 Mascot

[edit] Mozilla vs Mozzilla

Surpisingly, entering Mozzilla (2 'z's) into a Wikipedia search, seamlessly sends you to this page (1 'z'). Yet, searching for Mozzilla with 2z in google, cheerfully sends you to http://www.mozzilla.pl/, complete with a firefox 2 download "invitation". I'm not a security expert, but something about the page makes me think that it's malware, masquerading as Mozilla (1z). I was hoping to get confirmation of my gut feel here, (or if it's legit, a good explanation of what's going on). But... there's no inkle here of anything. 64.26.147.9 08:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)confused & paranoid.

[edit] Histories merged

I have merged the histories of the article Mozilla and the article Mozilla Application Suite which was created as a clone without history from the entire contents of this article as it stood two weeks ago, the original contents being replaced by a clone of the contents at that time of the article Mozilla (disambiguation). I do not understand why the decision was taken to split the original article off and replace it by another which is somewhat parallel to the existing article Mozilla (disambiguation), but doing so was contrary to the GFDL.

This has been a stupid and unnecessary event, which may take some time to disentangle. The article could have been moved to Mozilla Appplication Suite and the disambig moved here (Mozilla) without losing the integrity of the article history and without compromising the GFDL. This is what we mean when we say don't do cut-and-paste copies. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the old Mozilla should have been moved to Mozilla Application Suite, and the old Mozilla (disambiguation) should have been moved to Mozilla. I don't know if it was a good idea to merge their histories, though... Mozilla is basicly a disambiguation page, while Mozilla Application Suite is specificly about the browser suite. --taestell 23:50, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

Mozilla was originally about the latter, and the vastness of its history is of that article. The more recent edits will perhaps have to be moved to replace the current content of Mozilla (disambiguation) if that can be done without contravening the GFDL. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:55, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mozilla (disambiguation) needs to be redirected to Mozilla, which should remain how it looks now: short summaries of each deinition, with links to the longer articles. Mozilla Application Suite needs to be created to talk about the suite. --taestell 00:11, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Confusing page

I'm a layman and I'm confused. Is there any connection between Netscape and Mozilla-the-makers-of-Firefox? And if Mozilla is a trademark of Netscape, why are Mozilla-the-makers-of-Firefox allowed to use it as the name for a free browser that many people use in preference to buying Netscape Navigator?! I'm sure all the relevant info is in this article, but it's not clearly expressed for ignorant readers like myself. A few sentences in the introduction could make this so much clearer. The Singing Badger 23:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

In looking at the article, the answers to your questions seem obvious. I don't see any reason to put the specific information you mention at the top of the article, other than that seems to be to the information you happened to be looking for while reading the article. The article doesn't say that Mozilla is a trademark of Netscape — it clearly states that Mozilla is a trademark of the Mozilla Foundation. -- Schapel 03:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. Maybe I shouldn't try to read articles when I'm tired. Thanks for making the effort to reply, and I apologize. <:( The Singing Badger 04:00, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tax Evasion Rumors

Does anyone know if the Mozilla tax evasion stuff posted on an apparently not-approved-for-wikipedia website is true??? I stumbled upon it and now I am quite curious. The article doesn't mention this at all, are the tax evasion accusations all rot? --JP 4/24/06

Being a legal matter, wouldn't that be for a court to decide? Until the matter is brought to court, I think we should dismiss any criminal accusations as unfounded. -- Schapel 00:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] mozilla foundation and suite work, future tense

> Mozilla Foundation will no longer release new versions of the suite, so that developers can focus on Firefox and Thunderbird.

I'm not quite sure how to comment on an article like this, but the Mozilla Foundation made the choice so that *its* developers can focus on Firefox/Thundebird. The sentence to me, as I read it, seems to imply that it was so that all (Mozilla) developers could focus on Firefox and Thunderbird.

Also, if Mozilla Foundation is no longer releasing versions, wouldn't "Mozilla Foundation no longer makes new releases of the suite" (present instead of future tense), be better? Or alternatively, if someone really likes the current construction, perhaps "As of <date/reference>, {sentence}"?

I'm not certain that there will not be another 1.7.x release.

18 June 2006

[edit] Mozilla Application Suite section

I was reading a bit in this section of the article, and I notice there's a picture of Firefox 2 RC3 in there. There are two things about this. The first thing is, there's a Firefox screenshot in this section. Should this be removed/relocated somewhere else? The second thing is, It's mislabeled as "Mozilla 2.0". If it fits anywhere else in here, shouldn't it be called "Mozilla Firefox 2.0"? After all, that would mislead someone reading to learn a bit of information about the Mozilla Suite. Moronicles 20:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)