Maintaining an Independent Browser Is Expensive • Hacker News Board

Re: Maintaining an Independent Browser Is Expensive

#301

Post by jopsen » Tue, Dec 05, 2017, 5:50 AM UTC

jstewartmobile wrote: post #104

Vinnl wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but you implied they couldn't strive for independence while doing so. Furthermore, it's good to note that they have actually diversified: https://blog.mozilla.org/press/2014/11/new-search-strategy-f...

That is from 2014. They are back on the smack[0]. As long as search is the revenue center, there isn't much room[1] for diversification. If they need annual revenue of ~$400M to operate, it's either Google or Google. edit: On that last point, I could be wrong. Most of the biggies could throw half a billion at them indefinitely if it served the right purpose. [0] https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/14/mozilla-terminates-it…

Afaik, Google is nolonger the default in all markets.

Re: Maintaining an Independent Browser Is Expensive

#302

Post by hennsen » Tue, Dec 05, 2017, 10:19 AM UTC

rlanday wrote: post #292

hennsen wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there are other people who are able to do the job, but not meet the hiring bar, what does that tell us about the bar?

Did I say that? No interview process is perfect, but here's what would happen if e.g. Google attempted to use your strategy of "make the interviews easier and pay people less": Many candidates would interview at both Google and Facebook (as well as other companies). The smartest, hardest-working candidates are all able to figure out how to game the interview process and get really good at solving algorithms problems…

Haha.

You question that you said „It’s not that “no one else” could do their job, but there’s not an unlimited supply of people who can meet the hiring bar“ Or what?

I didn’t propose a concrete strategy. I just doubt the things have to be as they are and pose a lot of questions why they are as they are.

Then you build exactly one fictional scenario that would make things maybe(not necessarily - there are options... maybe there is a number of smart people who don’t want to learn for artificial interview scenarios, maybe they don’t have some university degree) go bad for one employer and imply the conclusion everything has to be and stay as it is.

Do you see the problem here?

Re: Maintaining an Independent Browser Is Expensive

#303

Post by zaarn » Tue, Dec 05, 2017, 2:17 PM UTC

roca wrote: post #295

zaarn wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or alternatively, follow a strict release cycle, ie, once a year and publish that. Have all standards follow this cycle. The choices aren't "commit everything to master" or "commit everything into various versions". A strict release cycle also prevents having some hype extension which only a few people actually use since it takes more effort and dedication to get stuff into the standards.

Why would you want your published version to exclude up to a years worth of fixes for known issues?

Why would you want an only 3 week old version with an unknown number of untested and unproven features?

Re: Maintaining an Independent Browser Is Expensive

#304

Post by rlanday » Tue, Dec 05, 2017, 7:27 PM UTC

hennsen wrote: post #302

rlanday wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did I say that? No interview process is perfect, but here's what would happen if e.g. Google attempted to use your strategy of "make the interviews easier and pay people less": Many candidates would interview at both Google and Facebook (as well as other companies). The smartest, hardest-working candidates are all able to figure out how to game the interview process and get really good at solving algorithms problems…

Haha. You question that you said „It’s not that “no one else” could do their job, but there’s not an unlimited supply of people who can meet the hiring bar“ Or what? I didn’t propose a concrete strategy. I just doubt the things have to be as they are and pose a lot of questions why they are as they are. Then you build exactly one fictional scenario that would make things maybe(not necessarily - there are options... m…

I don't understand your point of view. You work in tech, right? Do you want tech companies to pay their employees less?

Re: Maintaining an Independent Browser Is Expensive

#305

Post by hennsen » Wed, Dec 06, 2017, 10:45 AM UTC

rlanday wrote: post #304

hennsen wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Haha. You question that you said „It’s not that “no one else” could do their job, but there’s not an unlimited supply of people who can meet the hiring bar“ Or what? I didn’t propose a concrete strategy. I just doubt the things have to be as they are and pose a lot of questions why they are as they are. Then you build exactly one fictional scenario that would make things maybe(not necessarily - there are options... m…

I don't understand your point of view. You work in tech, right? Do you want tech companies to pay their employees less?

We talk about the question if managers have to be that expensive.

And I’m open to a yes if there are valid points and my questions about it answered.

We don’t talk about what I want to get paid.

You’re steering away from the topic, right after questioning something that you said just exactly as cited, and dont answer straight questions. Do you wanna take part in a discussion or just confuse abd avoid it?

Re: Maintaining an Independent Browser Is Expensive

#306

Post by fooker » Fri, Dec 08, 2017, 4:21 PM UTC

pcwalton wrote: post #208

fooker wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rust and Servo doesn't have much to do with Firefox 57/Quantum, it is still mostly Gecko inside.

I was present for the initial Quantum discussions. The entire idea behind Quantum was to integrate the most mature part of Research's work into Firefox on a short time frame. Without that impetus, it's pretty safe to say there wouldn't have been a Quantum.

You do not contradict my point though.

Re: Maintaining an Independent Browser Is Expensive

#307

Post by bzbarsky » Sat, Dec 09, 2017, 7:24 AM UTC

bpicolo wrote: post #199

chrismorgan wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe Chrome has for a while been using much the same model as Firefox has recently taken up, not a new process for each tab. AMO’s lack of malware problem is simply because it’s not so popular—making addons was, before WebExtensions, decidedly harder, and the browser’s not as popular as Chrome, so why bother targeting it when there are bigger fish you can catch more easily?

Hmm. `ps -A | grep -i chrome | wc -l` adds +1 per tab for me on Mac OSX as long as I navigate off the home. Does it cap eventually?

Yes, there's a cap. See https://www.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/process... for the detailed descriptions the "Caveats" section.

Re: Maintaining an Independent Browser Is Expensive

#308

Post by bzbarsky » Sat, Dec 09, 2017, 7:31 AM UTC

feelin_googley wrote: post #228

Annual salaries from 2015 (reportable compensation from IRS Form 990): Mitchell Baker, Chair $977,382 + $45,530 Bob Lisborne, Director $92,000 Mark Surman, Exec. Dir./President $170,699 + $40,602 Jim Cook, Treasurer $934,526 + $45,530 Angela Plohman, Secretary/VP Operations $121,322 + $30,342 Christopher Lawrence, VP Learning $153,492 + $62,538 An-Me Chung, Dir. Partnerships 154,946 + $72,672 Daniel Sinker, Dir. Part…

Just to be clear, a decent (i.e. can get through the interviews) straight-out-of-school developer in the bay area can expect a salary of around $100-120k. Plus bonuses. Plus stock of some sort (e.g. RSUs at Google and the like). And of course developers with a few years experience are paid more than that.

That's in the general ballpark of all the salaries on your list except Mitchell Baker and Jim Cook.

Re: Maintaining an Independent Browser Is Expensive

#309

Post by mijowi » Sat, Dec 09, 2017, 9:02 AM UTC

chrismorgan wrote: post #137

tempestn wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not going to install a nightly build on your friend's or mom's phone though. Your parent is already sold on FF; just waiting for Quantum to be released on Android before pushing it.

I can think of only one crash in the best part of a year of using Firefox Nightly exclusively on my phone. (Firefox Nightly on my laptop has been far more heavily used for a number of years and has had a handful of crashes and a few other issues, but still fewer crashes at least than I get the impression production Chrome has.)

I've had a few crashes with it. But nothing serious or really different from Chrome. There's also FF developer edition, which is more stable.

Re: Maintaining an Independent Browser Is Expensive

#310

Post by skinnymuch » Sat, Dec 16, 2017, 8:29 PM UTC

hungerstrike wrote: post #250

skinnymuch wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're saying Mozilla is turning people into idealogues without joking? Besides the fact that people independently choose to be active, half the Mozilla fans in this thread aren't shoving Firefox down anyone's threat. Firefox Quantum is a worthy competitor to Chrome. So is Safari on Mac. Not sure about Edge as I haven't used it.

Mozilla obviously doesn't turn people into what they are already. It just attracts that certain type of person. My poor choice of words doesn't change the fact that Mozilla annoys me, but thanks for the correction... > half the Mozilla fans in this thread aren't shoving Firefox down anyone's threat. They don't have to when the top comment patronizes everybody by telling them what's "ideal". Gimme a break! > Firefox Q…

Why did you use ...? You admit you had poor choice of words. I can't mind read so I didn't know your intended meaning.

> No it's not.

How does saying that help or inform in any way? I didn't elaborate on Firefox 57 because but others had in the thread and the post itself is about the browser.