Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Thank you, Chris

blog.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 229 posts

Re: Thank you, Chris

#61

Post by jsgo »

The_rationalist wrote: post #33
jcranmer wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about not duplicating your post simply because the first one got downvoted?

Well to my defense, people seemed trigerred by my first sentence and then overlooked the proposal, that was my understanding. Thus I reposted without the sentence to gather a more useful feedback than dislikes.

in your first one, you didn't ask for feedback on it but stating you had presented it.

As far as the proposal, you basically say Mozilla is petering out/an also-ran and that they should essentially leverage what can be leveraged from Chromium and focus on their custom functionality to differentiate and allowing them to focus in such a way that they don't need as many resources. You also invoke Not Invented Here, yet pretty sure Firefox predates Chromium by a pretty fair margin, but I would imagine that WebKit/Chromium/Blink all exist because the stakeholders of the time didn't feel Firefox was moving in the direction they wanted to go. If that's the case, what likelihood is there that Firefox is going to import more than necessary from Chromium effectively allowing Google et al to steer Firefox's direction? You bring up modules they do use, but those are essentially standards that they have in place because everyone should have them. Your "third way" is more or less what they're doing already, you even acknowledge this, but you advocate for a vague "more" for them to bake into Firefox. What more are you specifically wanting them to bring in from Chromium?

Re: Thank you, Chris

#62

Post by yumraj »

huhtenberg wrote: post #15
spiderfarmer wrote: post #4

Chris was great from what I have seen, but I think Mozilla needs a CEO that knows how to increase market share.

Mozilla is now openly peeing in Google's punch all the while being dependent on piles of money they take from it. At some point Google will get tired of this and will withdraw from the agreement. They won't be the default search provider, but that will play to their advantage - Firefox out-of-the-box user experience will take a sharp nose dive. Say all you want about DDG and alternatives, but they still can't hold a…

> Say all you want about DDG and alternatives

I've been using DDG, finally, for a little less than 1 year. For most part my DDG searches have been sufficient, in the sense that I generally find what I'm looking for and my need is met.

On few occasions where my need is not met, I do a !g and sometimes Google gives me what I want, but not in all the cases. I have to refine my search query in many, if not most, of those cases.

One area where Google is definitely better than DDG, for obvious reasons, is where Google shows better YouTube videos and I believe also Image results. But for regular searches, DDG has been satisfactory.

Re: Thank you, Chris

#63

Post by byuu »

saidajigumi wrote: post #45
huhtenberg wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mozilla is now openly peeing in Google's punch all the while being dependent on piles of money they take from it. At some point Google will get tired of this and will withdraw from the agreement. They won't be the default search provider, but that will play to their advantage - Firefox out-of-the-box user experience will take a sharp nose dive. Say all you want about DDG and alternatives, but they still can't hold a…

Say all you want about DDG and alternatives, but they still can't hold a candle to Google's search quality. I'm rather torn on this point. On one hand, yes, DDG for example feels some years behind Google in its relevance ranking. On the other, Google itself has been degrading the quality of its own results with ads, etc. so badly that they've seriously degraded their own "above the fold" relevant results.

I've always written off Duck Duck Go in the past, but lately after not being able to find relevant info on Google, I've been giving them a go and have been rather impressed. Especially on image results, which are way nicer to use and give you direct image links. Plus they don't obfuscate all the URLs with tracking redirects, so I can copy a link without visiting a page (that might redirect the URL on me again.)

There's still some things they miss, and my main complaint with DDG is it's too aggressive in taking the search you asked for and substituting in results it thought you meant. I suspect that problem comes from their upstream providers like Bing, which has similar issues.

Re: Thank you, Chris

#64

Post by jrochkind1 »

saidajigumi wrote: post #45
huhtenberg wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mozilla is now openly peeing in Google's punch all the while being dependent on piles of money they take from it. At some point Google will get tired of this and will withdraw from the agreement. They won't be the default search provider, but that will play to their advantage - Firefox out-of-the-box user experience will take a sharp nose dive. Say all you want about DDG and alternatives, but they still can't hold a…

Say all you want about DDG and alternatives, but they still can't hold a candle to Google's search quality. I'm rather torn on this point. On one hand, yes, DDG for example feels some years behind Google in its relevance ranking. On the other, Google itself has been degrading the quality of its own results with ads, etc. so badly that they've seriously degraded their own "above the fold" relevant results.

It doesn't sound like your torn at all, if you think DDG still feels year behind Google, despite Google's results degrading. Sounds like you still think Google is a lot better.

Re: Thank you, Chris

#65

Post by jtbayly »

UweSchmidt wrote: post #43
RandomBacon wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They need a killer feature. Firefox used to be the only better alternative to IE. Then Chrome came along and it used to be the best at tabs and resources. Then Brave came along with automatic ad-blocking. Firefox needs to match the competition and surpass it. What would the next killer feature be?

Privacy! Rethink the whole thing from the ground up with privacy in mind. This includes transparency to whats going on under the hood, an integration of important plugins (your average video downloading plugin is likely siphoning all kinds of information), sandboxing, privacy-aware defaults, and banning and blacklisting a whole lot of known crap!

For some reason I read that as "Piracy!" Got my mind running in a rather different direction. lol

Re: Thank you, Chris

#66

Post by tomhoward »

The_rationalist wrote: post #49
tomhoward wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN's guidelines have been developed over 10+ years and give good guidance as to what kinds of comments are well-received here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I really like those guidelines! Could you please enlighten me on which one did I break?

Some possibilities below.

FWIW, I didn't downvote you, I'm just suggesting reasons why others might have.

> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.

> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

> Eschew flamebait. Don't introduce flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents.

> Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work

> Please don't comment about the voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes boring reading.

Re: Thank you, Chris

#67

Post by jrochkind1 »

daveFNbuck wrote: post #51
huhtenberg wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mozilla is now openly peeing in Google's punch all the while being dependent on piles of money they take from it. At some point Google will get tired of this and will withdraw from the agreement. They won't be the default search provider, but that will play to their advantage - Firefox out-of-the-box user experience will take a sharp nose dive. Say all you want about DDG and alternatives, but they still can't hold a…

I use DDG almost exclusively and I haven't noticed the difference. If having Google as the default search is so important, couldn't they just make it the default without the deal?

Sure, but they count on it for significant revenue. If Google didn't want to pay it, but they kept Google, they'd be giving up that revenue from some other potential provider.

(Of course, if Google didn't want to pay it, it might cause a crash in the 'market value' of such a placement anyway).

Re: Thank you, Chris

#68

Post by pbhjpbhj »

modzu wrote: post #30
angrygoat wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When Firefox decimated Internet Explorer in the 2000s, it was just... better. And I think Chrome had some fairly obvious gains over Firefox and IE which led it to gain market share. I was an early adopter of Chrome, but that was in the days before Google seemed so sinister... I use Firefox now because I care about privacy, and I'd rather use a browser developed by a non-profit that cares about that as well. But I sus…

its so obvious that native ad blocking could be that feature. when a non-tech user opens up a browser with ad blocking it blows their mind. they go to youtube and put on a song, and wait! they don't have to reach for the mute first to silence some loud ad? they don't have to wait to click "skip" on the ad? it just works?? the user just wants the content and we can give it to them. imo this would be the step from chro…

The web can survive without ads, will corporations let it though?

Re: Thank you, Chris

#69

Post by jsgo »

Vinnl wrote: post #50
angrygoat wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When Firefox decimated Internet Explorer in the 2000s, it was just... better. And I think Chrome had some fairly obvious gains over Firefox and IE which led it to gain market share. I was an early adopter of Chrome, but that was in the days before Google seemed so sinister... I use Firefox now because I care about privacy, and I'd rather use a browser developed by a non-profit that cares about that as well. But I sus…

Firefox was a lot better than IE, but decimated is not the right word. I think it had about 25% market share at its peak? Chrome might be better than Firefox for some use cases, but the difference is definitely not as big as it used to be between Firefox and IE. Yet its market share is way higher. Which leads me to think it's not (just) about being better. I'd guess lock-in/cross-product marketing is another major fa…

during Chrome's climb, Firefox was a fairly slow mess and in some ways caused by users having tons of addons enabled at any given time. Firefox was a lot better than IE when Firefox came out (and remained that way even during its slow period), but Chrome was a lot better during its initial rise than both of them too.

Firefox is way better from a performance standpoint than it was during Chrome's climb, but Chrome gobbled up all of the "not built into my OS" market share and unless someone is severely for privacy, does it have enough to differentiate to get people to switch? To me, they seem to be very much peers of equal value.

Re: Thank you, Chris

#70

Post by fabrice_d »

The_rationalist wrote: post #54
nemothekid wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is this posted on the servo issue tracker?

I have no good reason, bugzilla was not responsive at all on my android and I wasn't aware of mailing lists. Anyway nobody tell what they think about it despite being what really matters..

I don't think you posted to the relevant mailing list like you've been told to do in https://github.com/servo/servo/issues/24026#issuecomment-523...
Post reply on HN