151–160 of 437 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there some way to ensure the donation money will actually go to Firefox and not to some sort of "diversity" campaign?
Yikes why would you not want companies investing in diversity? Especially if they are the interface to our online world?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because diversity in the tech world isn't real. Just read about Brendan Eich. He got fired because he had the incorrect opinion. In my world, that is the complete opposite of diversity.
Brendan Eich worked against equal rights. Don’t you know Karl Popper’s formulation - a tolerant world cannot tolerate intolerance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Javascript is not the kind of diversity I want! But on a more serious note, from the little I know he got fired because he supported banning same-sex marriage. Which is not just about 'opinion'. That's about discrimination and he should be called out for it.
He funded such a campaign, yes. With his private money on his free time. That is not discrimination. He even wrote sorry for causing hurt and pledged to promote equality at Mozilla. Your comment is a prime example of what's wrong with the tech industry in my opinion.
Genuinely curious, how isn't that discrimination? Since when did it being his own money in his free time stop it being a discriminatory stance?
I must be the only person in the world who likes being tracked and getting tailored ads. I've found lots of things I've bought due to ads that were obviously targeted at me specifically.
More deeply you risk to miss what could really be the best for you, for what is the best for somebody else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I always like to compare the 'advertising' that we see on the net vs the ones we see in a store. In the first instance, the website can and does monetise you, whereas in a store it's just that: a suggestion. In a store, the advertiser might have paid for a placement, but an individual's metrics are not harvested. So, the real dysfunction is that advertisers aren't paying a website up front for 'space'. I will always…
This isn’t as true these days as it used to be. Many stores use WiFi hotspots and Bluetooth beacons (and computer vision on security cameras) to track customers in their stores to build advertising and placement strategies. Target’s particularly fond of this approach.
--
[0] - which didn't start as advertising technology, but ended up being used this way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
While wording could be improved, the point stands. I want my money to be used for working on Firefox (the core browser) and for that exclusively. Not something like Pocket or whatever Mozilla thinks it should bring out that nobody asked for. There is no way to ensure this, so I will not give any money at all.
> There is no way to ensure this, so I will not give any money at all. Please keep in mind that this is not a personal attack as I don't know you and I don't find it particularly constructive to engage in this kind of attacks, so please only focus on my argument: I cannot understand this way of thinking. On one hand we have the option to give Mozilla some money to use them however they see fit. This means that from t…
I want Mozilla to build a browser and a mail program. Nothing else. It's easy as that.
And if I have to "fear" that they will use my money to build something else, I will not donate to them.
Think of them as a company with several products. People would buy Firefox, they would buy Thunderbird, but probably nobody would buy the aforementioned "moz://" product or Pocket.
In a traditional company this would lead to a production stop of the later two and to a better focus on the first two products.
With Mozilla, and other donation-based "companies" it will not work that way. There will be other stuff that gets allocated lots of money, because "the money is there" and needs to be used.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t have data to back this up, more just a hunch, but I feel like Firefox uses less resources than Chrome. Less hard drive thrashing and deals with lots of tabs really well.
Yep, this hasn't been my experience at all (quite the opposite). I've been reading this FUD for as long as Chrome has been around (10 years?), and when you ask the person for concrete numbers, all you get back is "I don't know, it just feels like it". I stopped engaging at this point. Edit: not to mention that you can configure the number of webrender processes Firefox uses to render web pages. If you have a fast eno…
Good job you don't work in user experience design, then, because how things feel to people is a huge part of that. If software feels bad to use, people won't use it, simple as that.
No amount of haughtiness from your high horse will change that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How could ads benefit users? Obviously, if the revenue that content creators receive from ads came directly from the consumers, the middle (ad) man would be cut out and all others would benefit.
The media is financed by ads to the tune of around 50%. That business is sort of necessary for democracy, as decision-making requires information to close the feedback loop. Therefore, I wouldn't quite so readily cheer the downfall of the industry with nothing more than the typical "be better and you'll find more paying customers" advice.
That's because it's the easiest and most profitable business model available. Kill it off, and media will shift to a different model. Advertising isn't necessary for media to exist, and it's not like people want media to exist because of ads.
> That business is sort of necessary for democracy, as decision-making requires information to close the feedback loop.
Sort of, kind of. Some news reporting is the part that's necessary for democracy. Not the entirety of what news sites serve today, and definitely not the larger media industry.
News reporting is already pretty much as low as it can get, thanks to advertising-based business model. Facts and reasoned opinions matter little; fake news and outrage-inducing reporting generates more page views, leading to more ad impressions, and thus more money for the news organization.
Switched to Firefox a few months back. Havn’t missed Chrome at all
To offer a bit of an opposite view here on HN: I give firefox a shot from time to time. I switch all devices to it, and then I use it exclusively all the time. My most recent attempt failed few days ago, after a bit more than a month with it. Firefox performance just doesn't feel the same as chrome, from constant small freezes, to using 100% CPU pretty often. And just overall experience on some platforms - especially…
I don't get those problems, but even if I did, it would be well worth it as opposed to seeing ads all the time. If Google wanted me to uninstall Firefox forever and use Chrome they'd allow for plug-ins for Chrome (on Android). While they don't I'll simply never switch. I have no idea how people tolerate ads.