(Note: I speak only for myself, and not for the Mozilla Foundation.)

> That's because that's what is needed now: hard words.

Why? Hard words vs. agreement is a false dichotomy. Other people have managed to be critical without being rude. And, of course, being rude makes it much harder for people to actually take your points on board, because they are continually put off by your style.

This is a lesson it took me _years_ to learn.

I've commented on some of the things I disagree with. Other things I agree with wholeheartedly. But often, I read what you had to say, threw up my hands and said "I can't be bothered to try and engage with such a load of grandstanding, incoherent, historically-inaccurate, badly-argued sniping" (e.g. 3, 10). You may say this is my problem, and that I'm just avoiding criticism. Feel free to continue to think that if you like. Alternatively, once you've figured out how to express yourself in a way people actually enjoy reading, come over to the newsgroup and put your points there. You may be pleasantly surprised at the reception.

> When it chooses to accept a commercial deal from Google, and participate in
> their mission to swallow the whole earth, or with Yahoo, and participate in
> their mission whatever that is, then it behoves Mozilla to explain to the user
> base why this is positive, and why this is negative.

It's positive because we now employ 50+ people rather than 5, and because we have the ability to deploy servers and infrastructure to handle a userbase of 200 million plus. Because we have a shot at producing software which competes well enough with the market leader, in the correct time frame, to fulfil our primary mission of promoting choice on the Internet.

It's indeed possible that we could have continued to survive on donations, at a much lower level of activity. That may have been the route you would have chosen. But IMO we would have had a significantly smaller chance of taking this opportunity.

> Where did the 54 million go? What did I personally pay in accepting the
> stealth search deal? Are they tracking my queries?

It's in the accounts; nothing; and "read the source", respectively.

> You suggested: "Mozilla pledges to keep the Internet
> global and public resource, open and accessible to all."

Except that the Mozilla Manifesto is not just Mozilla (hopefully), which is why the principles are phrased as they are. And the wording above implies that keeping the Internet open and accessible is something totally within our power. Which it isn't. We can pledge to work towards it, strain every sinew etc. But a statement saying "it shall be so" is arrogance.

Lastly, it would be great if you were to configure your blogging software to allow some sort of markup, and say what is permitted. Having a commented discussion in just plain text is really difficult.