Mozilla Firefox Goes 'Organic'
by Mark Ontkush, Boston, Massachusetts, USA on 03.25.08
People have this remarkable quality of equating the properties of wildly disparate objects. These are often captured in the aphorism; no man is an island, food is love, green is the new black. Even more remarkable is that a wealth of meaning flows between us when these phrases pop out of our mouths.
In this vein, the Mozilla corporation, creator of the superb Firefox web browser, has declared their software to be 100% organic. No, it's not to be eaten; but in this interview with Paul Kim, Mozilla VP, he explains why the term is relevant. Please, feast your eyes on this, and give us your gut on the matter; can software be organic?
Treehugger: Hello?
Paul Kim: Hi, how's it going?
TH: Great!
PK: I'm excited to be talking with Treehugger, you guys are doing amazing work.
TH: Thanks. Want to start with some background on who you are?
PK: I'm the VP of marketing for Mozilla Corporation. I've been with Mozilla for a bit over two years - I helped launch Firefox 1.5 and 2.0.
TH: So Mozilla is really taking off; as someone who has been doing web development since 1994, I've seen most of the browsers that have come along and Mozilla is a great one, probably the best ever. So, thanks. What do you think makes Mozilla so great?
PK: I think without a doubt it's a relentless focus on improving the web experience for everyone, and that manifests itself in Firefox. The proof is in the growth - we wouldn't be approaching 20% worldwide market share with an inferior browser. And the key to making a great browser Mozilla-style is our open source development process and community. Without that there is no Firefox.
TH: So the community is important, how many developers do you have? and why do they participate?
PK: There are about 50-60 developers employed by Mozilla Corporation directly. But there are hundreds of folks who don't work for us contributing code to Firefox development. I can't presume to tell you why each individual participates, but in speaking with some folks it's clear that the mission of helping to maintain an open and participatory Web is pretty motivating for most people. And there is of course the satisfaction in contributing code to a product that is used by over 150 million people.
TH: I have read your blurb on 'organic software'; I find it is similar to the definition of 'free software'. What are the differences between the two terms? Do the developers recognize it is a different model?
PK: I should clarify that we're not trying to create a new model. Instead, what we're trying to do is to help new sets of people who know nothing about open source software quickly start to understand that Firefox is something different from the software they're currently using to access the Web. 'Organic software' is a concept we came up with that we thought would resonate with end users in ways that 'free software' doesn't. I think 'free software', at least in the US, doesn't carry the same valence that 'FLOSS' does in, say, Europe.
TH: Certainly the term 'free software' can be confusing; I had to read over the whole free speech/free beer explanation several times before I got the hang of it. Is it just a terminology issue then - organic sounds cooler?
PK: I think for people not in the open source movement, the term 'organic' is a lot clearer and immediately graspable. I think in the broader culture, and again I'm speaking of the US, the word 'free' gets filtered through a consumer lens. So yes, it's a terminology issue for end users - trying to communicate clearly what practitioners already grok.
TH: I would suggest that the term 'organic' is also a consumer lens, a powerful one. In the food world, 'organic' means something very concrete; it's how you farm, what chemicals you use, third-party inspections, etc. It is essentially a branding term, a 'seal of approval' that is hard to get and highly sought. What are the similarities/differences here, is there a danger of diluting this term by applying it to software? One might see the term in your context and see Mozilla as trying to glom on to a distinctive branding term, like many food producers try and do. Isn't there a danger here? And is this really what you are after?
PK: That's a great question. I'm really happy we're having this dialog because we're super conscious of respecting the source of the 'organic' brand. So let me break down the question.
The main one for me is the end result -- people have a preference for organic produce because it hasn't been tainted by, say, pesticides. The reason consumers prefer organic goods in part are that they are better for you and your family. In a similar way, what we're suggesting is that Firefox is better for you because it's produced in a way that respects the user.
I don't think this dilutes the term 'organic', but I'm also hoping your readers will give us this feedback. We have nothing but respect for the strides the green movement has made in reclaiming some semblance of sanity in something as core to the human experience as food production. If we can stand on the shoulders of giants that'd be awesome.
TH: So, I like to summarize what I've heard so far. Mozilla is akin to a healthy product for a variety of reasons, and many developers participate because they think it great; however, the world at large is not so convinced - yet. Firebox is better because it respects the user. Any other items? I assume it's better for other reasons as well.
PK: I think the world at large hasn't heard the story yet; we don't have a $500 million marketing budget like some folks. But I do think when people learn about Firefox and Mozilla, something about the story does connect with a lot of folks. And mostly this is happening through word of mouth recommendations.
Regarding Firefox being better; yes, it respects the user. But it also respects open standards, which create a level playing field for any individual/company/organization to create Web content for others. And it is a manifestation of Mozilla's core belief in the importance of providing vehicles for participation on the Internet. See http://www.mozilla.org/about/mozilla-manifesto.html
TH: It sounds like a case of 'there are poisons out there' and Mozilla is 'poison-free'. I can see how this is akin to organic, and I think, as a heavy mozilla user, I could see why this is the case. And supporting open standards is important. So, the actual process of creating the Mozilla browser, that is not part of the organic definition?
PK: That's a great analogy. I would include the process of creating, yes. And in fact, the proof is in the code -- our code is completely open for anyone to review. So anyone can vet our claims of being on the side of the end user. If there was poison in the code, a hacker would find it.
TH: The process of creating... explain that. Some have argued that the open source process is 'communism supported by capitalism' i.e. well paid programmers in the real world work on open source in their spare time that their job affords them to do. How does 'organic software' fit into this; what is 'organic' about the labor process? How does 'openness' equate to 'organic' – maybe third party reviews for quality?
PK: Let me see if I understand the question; it's about the open source process. Again, I'm not going to presume I can speak to the motivations or efforts of countless programmers who are contributing every day to major open source projects like Linux, Apache, and Firefox. But I think there is something more primal about open source, more primal than communism or capitalism. It is the ability for anyone who has the passion and knowledge to make things better. I think I would bore with you tales of what I've seen from the programmers I work with - heroic efforts to fix security issues that require all nighters. You don't' do that kind of thing if it's just a job.
So organic as it relates to labor process; I think the pastoral myth has at its core a notion of land and farmer bound together in a virtuous cycle. I like to think that in open source software development, we've recaptured some of that goodness.
TH: I like the word 'primal', it reminds me that Mozilla is really a tool, something - like all technologies - that provides an advantage over nature. It's a spear to kill a mastodon. But it's a flexible tool, a tool that has no owner, a community thing. It's like the village well, not owned by any one entity.
PK: That's exactly right - we don't own the code. We put it out there anyone can take it and build on top of it. And they do! We're set up as a public benefit organization owned by a 501(c)3 nonprofit foundation, and we view our work as a public trust.
TH: The great irony of the process is that the Internet is global, and yet the Mozilla software is akin to a locally-owned resource, something that can be modified to suit your local, particular purpose and you have control over.
PK: That's interesting; you raise another good point. In fact one of the main drivers for the growth of Firefox is just that - being global and local. We shipped Firefox 2 in over 35 language versions the day it was released. And that's because we have a huge volunteer localization community. For example, Firefox is available in all 11 official South African languages. Contrast that to, say, Internet Explorer 7, which shipped in one language at first release.
TH: I think this adds to the 'organic' idea, kind of like locally grown food; these are different ideas but relate to the same concept. Right, so why didn't you go with 'sustainable software'?
PK: Organic as a term when paired with 'software' I think pops out more. But again - that's just one opinion. I'd love to hear it from your readers.
TH: One item that comes up over and over in the green world is 'what does it mean to be green'. The term is, I think, a bad one; it is overused and cannot be operationalized very well. Basically, the biggest mistake is that the term green should be used mostly as a verb, and it's mostly used as a noun. This leads me to suggest that maybe a clear distinction regarding software and food might be helpful -- Richard Stallman suggested this when we explored the relationship between computing and the environment. What do you think?
PK: Dr. Stallman is a hugely influential figure in the free software movement. My personal opinion is that where there are possible alliances of like minded people who seek similar outcomes, it's our responsibility to make those connections visible to the rest of the world. Whether you are coding open source software or farming sustainably, you are part of a greater world that needs you to be mindful of your actions and that is a powerful message to send to the powers that be.
TH: Another item we often kick around is whether green thing is actually a movement or a series of isolated events; pairing up with environmental groups suggests that more is at stake than just removing some bad gas from the atmosphere. What do you think about this, is there a revolution brewing?
PK: Concerning climate change, I think the scientific evidence is overwhelming; we're not living as a species in a sustainable way. For the sake of the future, I certainly hope there is a revolution in the way we live. And it's got to start here in the US, where we consume the most of any people in the world.
TH: But its not just consuming right; its respect for the consumers, it's coming together and agreeing on standards (computer or no), it's donating time to volunteer projects, it's a sense of openness and freedom; am I hitting on the similarities that you are finding? And are these items part of a philosophy that the Mozilla Corporation would espouse?
PK: Yes, absolutely. I think the message of open source software is fundamentally optimistic, that people can rally and self organize and make stuff that makes the world better. It's all encapsulated in the Mozilla manifesto, which Mitchell Baker, one of Mozilla's founders, helped author.
TH: Are there enemies of the 'organic software' movement ? If so, what are the +/- of these processes? And are these enemies of the environmental causes as well?
PK: I don't think we frame the situation that way, we think of it more as institutions that hinder the progress and evolution of the Web. If you look at history it's clear that once Microsoft eliminated Netscape from the picture, all of us who use the Web enjoyed several years of a progressively worse experience. With all this said, Microsoft does a ton of good works, and I'm sure they do a ton to help the environment. They have massive resources to bring to bear, and they're consistently ranked as a top company on many measures.
TH: Ok. So, are these other institutions promoting alternative 'non-organic' processes, simply not on board yet, or deliberately trying to subvert a movement in your opinion? I'm trying to make the cross connection; might this mean that they are 'anti-environment' or at least 'anti-revolution'?
PK: I think demonizing your competition is a relic of the industrial economy. I don't really have a good insight on the motivation of these other institutions. But their actions definitely speak to a desire to control.
TH: Would you classify them as 'non-organic'?
PK: I would classify them as old school. And just to be super clear, I'm not suggesting rebranding the 'open source' movement as the 'organic software' movement; we are using 'organic software' as a tool to reach a new set of potential end users for Firefox.
TH: Anything else you would like to add today?
PK: No - this was really great you helped me clarify a bunch of stuff. Thanks a bunch!
TH: Thank you!
interesting.. I love what they are doing, firefox is great, however perhaps their use of 'organic' is a cousin of the "greenwashing movement"- diluting the value of words such as organic, green, etc.
oh... and a minor point- although "no man is an island" is indeed one, "food is love" and "green is the new black" are not truisms.
[right, I changed it mjo]
Paul Kim's definition of Mozilla's use of "organic" is clear. I don't feel it's a dilution of the term but rather an expansion. Having an open mind for open sourced 'anything' is the key- be it open sourced software like Mozilla and Keepass, or that of open sourced food. The key is that the consumers know where a product comes from which makes the use of "organic" for software (and other products) revolutionary.
Go Mozilla!
The word he was looking for is "freeware."
Somebody needs to fire this guy before his synergistic paradigm gets outside its box and destroys us all.
Our rapidly growing multi-platform environment has organically evolved to host pop culture semaniticular extollations in order to elevate geekdom toward the non-Cobolic state.
On the basis that Open Source allows computers to operate successfully long after M$ bloatware would have consigned them to landfill; I'm very happy to Paul Kim describe Firefox as organic, and a greener alternative to a vastly inferior M$ offering.
My previous comment was probably a little too harsh, but I'd hate to see the word "organic" be used for computers ultil they're made of o.g. bioplastic. Let's keep it literal eh?
This makes sense to me - in software development, we use the word 'organic' fairly often to describe things that develop naturally - processes, code, applications, whatever - as opposed to projects that follow a very detailed plan from the top down. :) The term does have other legit meanings outside of the grocery market.
Yeah, Barbara, like being carbon-based. Organic chemistry, anyone? I think you'd have to be pretty confused to think software and agriculture are related in this sense.
Firefox is definitely my browser of choice, but I am extremely frustrated with how it does printing. In the spirit of the name of this blog, if "green" means doing everything possible to discourage you from wasting paper, then the adjective is being properly applied! However, when I need to print, I have discovered that the best way to avoid wasting paper is to go over to IE! Make of this data point what you will!
Let's get all etymological up on it.
Organic as a term has evolved:
1517, "serving as an organ or instrument," from L. organicus, from Gk. organikos "of or pertaining to an organ," from organon "instrument" (see organ).
Sense of "from organized living beings" is first recorded 1778 (earlier this sense was in organical, c.1450).
Meaning "free from pesticides and fertilizers" first attested 1942.
So, really Mozilla is the purist. Although, to be really purist, they would want to call Firefox "organical software."
It's those farmers you have to watch out for!
Citation:
organic. Dictionary.com. Online Etymology Dictionary. Douglas Harper, Historian. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/organic
(accessed: March 25, 2008).
[I love this thanks mjo]
I think the expression he's looking for is "Fair Trade". The natural reaction of any rational person (e.g. myself) to calling software organic is "that's stupid!".
I think that in the overall scheme of things, Mozilla's use of the term "organic" is not only respectful, but I think it can add to the overall principals the "organic" ideal is founded upon.
Sure, organic, at it's core, means untainted in the food industry. But expanding that ideal to other facets of our life can only make the word, and the ideals behind it, more powerful.
And John M - You apparently missed half the article, because one of the key points in using the "Organic" label was the point that the term "free" is not as all encompassing, or explanatory as it once was.
Freeware =/= open source in the slightest. There is a total difference, and even open source does not quite capture the kind of movement that Mozilla has made with their efforts.
I think he is using the term organic software in much the same way one would use the term "organic process" which can and is used in different fields to mean a naturalized process.
Specifically I have worked with people who perform "organic play based assessments" on young children to determine their needs. This means instead of trying to sit a 4 year old down for a test of their problem solving, speech, fine and gross motor they have the child go into a room with their mom, and play with a bunch of toys while the experts watch and see where the child's skills are at. It has nothing to do with pesticide free, but it has to do with how one responds as a social organism, as opposed to a test subject.
One of the most common definitions of organic means of or pertaining to a living organism.
And if you look up organism, is can constitute a system which is analogous to the functions of a living body
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/organisms
While the internet is not alive in the biological sense, the process is analogous to the processes in a living body with different people providing different functions to allow this process to occur.
Honestly when i first saw this I wondered what this had to do with the green movement, because I initially took the "organic softare" to mean a multifacted changing software, as I was pretty sure treehugger would have informed me in advance if someone was developing technology to transmit software through products naturally grown in the earth.
To those who think it's greenwashing I think you are missing what has become a fairly common language usage, which has little to do with the green movement. Organic in that context will likely mean better because it's more natural, but other than that they are both positive, they are very different definitions. The green one relates to products, the other one relates to processes, and things derived from that. I can understand why software being a product might confuse people a little, but I think Mr. Kim explains himself fairly well.
I like Mozilla's Songbird, but I still think Firefox sucks. Is being green taking up a lot of RAM and energy just to start up, and slow down your computer? As Stephen Smoliar said, is wasting printing paper through Firefox configurations being green?
I don't think so.
Firefox is cool, but definitely not green. IE7 isn't half bad as some people think, and with add-ons makes it super stable and better.
I use Firefox, have raved about it for years and love it. I was referred to this article from the Huffington Post. Unfortunately, Firefox does not work with the Huffington Post website. Messages pop up about scripts and the page freezes as do all other open Firefox pages, no matter what site they are on. That's Irony! (I'm on I.E. right now.)
Someone mentioned "Freeware" but that word means that software is free in price (gratis) but not free as in speech (libre). Open Source software is free as in speech (or freedom or libre) and usually free as in price, but it doesn't have to be. The freedom part is the important part. You are free to use it however you like, because it is Open Source (you can look at the code, and change it however you like).
I think organic is a cute term because it is so clear that you cant actually eat software. If you could, the world would never go hungry because you can copy software infinitely at no cost. That would be a good thing...
Firefox is the best browser option. That it's perceived as "green" is a bonus, but I'd likely use IE or Safari if they were better from a usability POV.
i got my first computer 5 years ago. i am computer illiterate. i don't know how to do anything much except surf the web. my first server was aol dial up. i sometimes used internet explorer. some where along the way 4 or so years ago i heard of firefox. i downloaded it and when i started it i was presented with a virtually blank screen. i stared for a few minutes, trying to understand how to use it. it was marvelous. the page had no popups, no stupid news, none of the tedious crap that fills the screen on aol or IE. i fell in love. firefox was what i felt an isp should be, a glorious blank white screen, inviting me to use it as i wished. i may not use firefox to it's full advantage, but i cannot imagine using anything else. at first, my lover didn't like it as well as he liked aol, but he has seen the light and now feels the same as me. we have both suggested firefox to all of our friends and acquaintenances, but these people mostly like aol and will not even try firefox. some people cannot recognize a good thing when it stares them in the face. change is scary to most people, they like the rut they are stuck in.
Ok, again, as FB and Liz S have pointed out previously. as well as Mr. Kim in the actual article, the use of the word organic here falls into a wholly different usage than that pertaining to food. Organic had a different meaning all together long before the food industry usage, NOT the other way around. (please again refer to FB's comment)
Organic in this sense is a different (and completely correct) use of the word. Processes not products!
This keeps being pointed out and it keeps being missed, and frankly that is a frustrating thing to keep reading in these comments.
As someone who has worked in software development for tiny startups, multi-national corporations, and in between this is rather sad. I respect the Firefox team, it's a great application (I've used it for many years). But this is pure marketing goo. Organic has very specific connotations and denotations: whether it relates to organisms, compounds, a process, or farming practices.
An attempt to redefine what organic means is certainly greenwashing. If they have to explain why software should be considered organic, they are redefining a term. Market buzz...weakens all other concepts of organics.
Ok, again, as FB and Liz S have pointed out previously. as well as Mr. Kim in the actual article, the use of the word organic here falls into a wholly different usage than that pertaining to food. Organic had a different meaning all together long before the food industry usage, NOT the other way around. (please again refer to FB's comment)
Organic in this sense is a different (and completely correct) use of the word. Processes not products!
This keeps being pointed out and it keeps being missed, and frankly that is a frustrating thing to keep reading in these comments.
As someone who has worked in software development for tiny startups, multi-national corporations, and in between this is rather sad. I respect the Firefox team, it's a great application (I've used it for many years). But this is pure marketing goo. Organic has very specific connotations and denotations: whether it relates to organisms, compounds, a process, or farming practices.
An attempt to redefine what organic means is certainly greenwashing. If they have to explain why software should be considered organic, they are redefining a term. Market buzz...weakens all other concepts of organics.
As someone who has worked in software development for tiny startups, multi-national corporations, and in between this is rather sad. I respect the Firefox team, it's a great application (I've used it for many years). But this is pure marketing goo. Organic has very specific connotations and denotations: whether it relates to organisms, compounds, a process, or farming practices.
An attempt to redefine what organic means is certainly greenwashing. If they have to explain why software should be considered organic, they are redefining a term. Market buzz...weakens all other concepts of organics.
note to the author... don't bury your lead.
The green bandwagon is leaving now....all aboard!
Their use of 'Organic' is about as relevant to this site as governments talking about 'Sustainable' double digit growth.
Everyone who needs to know, already knows what Open-Source means - leave it at that.
This is just green spin by association. But it got them an article on Treehugger!
Stupid - makes no sense to call software "organic". First reaction: in what way is it organic...do the programmers only eat organic food, bathe in organic sunlight during work hours, only power their computers by direct solar sunlight...
Just another marketing slogan to hold up against Microsoft to say, "Oh, look! We're nice and organic...Microsoft is pure evil and CORPORATE"
Bah.
Computers being a relatively new field of science have adopted a lot of terms from other fields of science. Typically the terms express a process or function, or serve as a metaphor, having that frame of reference is important in enabling discussion on what would otherwise be an extremely abstract concept.
Oh and quikboy; most of the features that make IE7 so good were copied from Firefox.
By the same reasoning, Firefox could be labeled 'God Approved', since lightning has not yet struck their headquarters.
Or perhaps Paul Kim is contemplating a future in political office, and is following the first rule of politicos, 'First, you must pollute the language, so true meaning cannot be determined, and any meaning can be inferred'.
Okay. Anytime you want to post a thought it will make you feel better if you throw in some currently sexy words. If they don't apply to what your topic is about, don't worry.
Communication isn't a real concern since we are increasing the number of cell phone calls, texts, IMs, blogs, et al. That counts for more than communicating something worthwhile, having a proficiency in English or salvaging the language itself.
It makes one feel 'with it' to find a way to wedge in the latest 'uh' or 'you know.' Isn't feeling 'with it' more important than communicating? After all, most of the people who will read your post are only marginally able to communicate themselves. But they will recognize the 'in' word that you used as such and they too will feel 'with it.'
I don't like the idea of branding a living application as organic, but maybe the development environment or organization - such as Mozilla, Free Software Foundation, etc... if they have open source apps and an open development community that goes beyond the corporation, that sounds like "healthy computing" to me...
But Firefox can change at Mozilla's whim, if they got their "Organic certification" and then changed the recipe a la McDonalds, who made a fuss about switching off trans fat but then hush hush switched back on, the product is a result of the community and the development organization - put the focus on that rather than what that produces.
That said, I love Firefox and Mozilla. But let's not brand products, because those are simply the results of what you are trying to do - profess a free and open culture of app dev
Thanks for the direct feedback everyone. Hearing Treehugger community reactions to this direction for talking about Firefox was a big part of why I was excited to talk to Mark.
One note: this quote as it currently stands isn't correct:
"I think for people in the open source movement, the term 'organic' is a lot clearer and immediately graspable."
That should have read:
"I think for people not in the open source movement, the term 'organic' is a lot clearer and immediately graspable."
[fixed mjo]
Firefox 'Organic'
Of course it's green-washing.
Thing is, this is another example of how well "green" sells now, and how much acceptance there is on "going-green" for everyone.
One nice "green" feature of firefox is that if you switch off the computer, it remembers where it was, and can take you back later.
@ Stephen ... "I am extremely frustrated with how it does printing. In the spirit of the name of this blog, if "green" means doing everything possible to discourage you from wasting paper, then the adjective is being properly applied!"
LOL.
Firefox isn't perfect, but it is good.
Firefox 'Organic'
Of course it's green-washing.
Thing is, this is another example of how well "green" sells now, and how much acceptance there is on "going-green" for everyone.
One nice "green" feature of firefox is that if you switch off the computer, it remembers where it was, and can take you back later.
@ Stephen ... "I am extremely frustrated with how it does printing. In the spirit of the name of this blog, if "green" means doing everything possible to discourage you from wasting paper, then the adjective is being properly applied!"
LOL.
Firefox isn't perfect, but it is good.
Firefox 'Organic'
Of course it's green-washing.
Thing is, this is another example of how well "green" sells now, and how much acceptance there is on "going-green" for everyone.
One nice "green" feature of firefox is that if you switch off the computer, it remembers where it was, and can take you back later.
@ Stephen ... "I am extremely frustrated with how it does printing. In the spirit of the name of this blog, if "green" means doing everything possible to discourage you from wasting paper, then the adjective is being properly applied!"
LOL.
Firefox isn't perfect, but it is good.
Incidentally, what the freak is up with TypeKey?
I sign in, agree to be kept signed in for a week, then find myself not signed in AFTER posting.
Is it TypeKey identity?
Is it FireFox that is incompatible?
Is it a glitch in Treehugger?
Whatever it is, it's annoying.
John Taylor (signing just in case TypeKey makes me anonymous again).
Superb browser? That's stretching the word superb farther than we are stretching the word organic. Good browser - yes, but so far, superb is a bit much for any browser.
Organic is a great way to describe a lot of the great Open Source and Free Software out there. Really, the main reason I prefer Free Software in many cases is because it's built by the users, not built by a software engineer directed by the marketing department to put together a product the customer didn't ask for. Plus, as others have pointed out, whil Microsoft did do a service by uniting computer companies under one banner (seriously, they did) they also helped foster rampant waste. And let's not get into those XP default power settings...