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

Mozilla lays off 70

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

801–810 of 962 posts

Re: Mozilla lays off 70

#801

Post by pbhjpbhj »

staticassertion wrote: post #665
shawndrost wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The person we're talking about is Mitchell Baker, who has spent over 20 years contributing to Mozilla, including years as a volunteer. She has been on Time's 100 most influential people list. She has directly authored many foundational pieces of Mozilla and (arguably) the internet. She is the founding CEO of the Mozilla Corporation, which pays her paycheck from its ~$500M in revenue. Mozilla Corp is the highly-profit…

Has she brought 2.5m of growth to the company in the last year?

I don't think that way of looking at things is fruitful, a CEO may have "presided" over huge growth, way above their compensation, but in practice that growth is most likely down to an amalgam of all the workers (and might have been higher without the CEO, for example).

Each worker gives the same, ultimately, an hour of their precious life each hour they work.

Re: Mozilla lays off 70

#802

Post by foldr »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #786
eschaton wrote: post #679

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And then the person who views it as faith-based starts talking about how his views need to be encoded into law, and those who are affected are sinners who will suffer for it. You can’t “agree to disagree” about bigotry. It fundamentally denies others’ humanity which is the very definition of making a hostile environment. How in the hell is this something people even consider should still be litigated? What’s next, op…

Is the white supremacist living according to the law? Do they abide by work regulations and treat everyone equally/equitably (as the org requires)? I may hate their view point, and want them not to exist, but they feel the same about me I expect.

>Do they abide by work regulations and treat everyone equally/equitably (as the org requires)?

Probably not.

But in any case, why should non-white coworkers be expected to work with a racist just because the person in question (hypothetically) puts on a token display of being tolerant? It's insulting and demeaning to ask them to put up with that.

You seem more interested in defending some implausibly courteous hypothetical white supremacist than in ensuring that real work environments are minimally tolerable for people who aren't white.

Re: Mozilla lays off 70

#803

Post by zobzu »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #768
raxxorrax wrote: post #740

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Through the bank my experience is that a technical background with someone growing into a leadership role ultimately creates better results. People whose only skill is "leadership" tend to perform pretty badly. But the Peter principle, doubtful if it even can be taken seriously, doesn't say anything about this specifically. I don't know anything about Eich, but I don't really see how he would have been bad for Mozill…

Surely the Mozilla execs don't take millions? And beg for charity?? I know Mozilla Corp/Org are technically split, but if one head of Cerberus ate all the food surely it doesn't still need feeding.

they do take millions. the money they take is basically from Google's search deal (thought technically a few other sources too).

The money you donate only goes to the foundation, which does not pay the exec, so any donation does not actually go to exec. The donations are required for the foundation to function at all, regardless of how well the corporation does.

to be honest, the whole thing is a bit of a hack though, because really mozilla functions 100% like a corporation even if they had a real foundation inside. its just a way to ensure that the board is Mitchell Baker - not a bunch of people who want the company to profit. this has good and bad sides, and right now we're definitely seeing the bad sides: exec get paid 800k to 2500k (Mitchell), senior devs get fired for making - i bet, 100k to 300k.

foundations are made to be places where you make the world a better place without having the "i want to make money" motto and that's not what Mozilla does. Mozilla wants money to pay execs and keep on surviving. Many other foundations have similar hacks (or arguably, scams!). The other advantage is that the foundation side does not pay tax of course.

Re: Mozilla lays off 70

#804

Post by zobzu »

tehbeard wrote: post #783
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #770

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mozilla gets $$$$ from Google, they seem pretty well funded?

Getting funding from your biggest rival isn't exactly the most stable strat long term... Mismanagement of funds/personnel not withstanding.

to be fair it worked for like 2 decades, it feels long termish. but i don't really disagree.

the current model really is: Google needs Mozilla to survive so that they have less chances to get split due to monopoly in the browser market

Re: Mozilla lays off 70

#805

Post by pbhjpbhj »

marcinzm wrote: post #145
petagonoral wrote: post #35

in 2018, mozilla had 368 million USD in assets: 2018 financials: https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2018/mozilla-fdn-201... wow, 2.5 million for the executive chair of Mozilla in 2018. is that person really bringing 2.5 millions dollar worth of value to the company. this is in addition to the 2.x million from the year before. 10s of million exfiltrated out of a non-profit by one person over the last few years. n…

I mean, Mozilla brings in $450 million a year in revenue and manages $600 million worth of assets. If she's able to increased the revenue or efficiency by just 1% then she's paid off almost twice her salary. edit: Fixed pronoun, apologies.

Any employee [at Mozilla] who increases revenue, you just give them the revenue? (Or half of it?)

Re: Mozilla lays off 70

#806

Post by zobzu »

melling wrote: post #127
minikites wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>is that person really bringing 2.5 millions dollar worth of value to the company Change the number and this will apply to most CEOs. https://www.glassdoor.com/research/ceo-pay-ratio/ According to these numbers, CEOs work 204 times as hard as regular employees.

How much harder do software developers work than coal miners?

Jobs do not have to be physically exhausting to be hard.

Coal miner's job is hard and deadly. programming is differently hard and not very deadly (arguably working at a desk, wreaking your brain 70h a week with 10 days off a year is somewhat deadly). i'd take the programming job any day as long as I get a bay area salary, granted that I can program.

However, i can tell you most programmer jobs are much harder, take much more hours than many lower paying jobs (not even mentioning the fact that you need to be somewhat smart and learn it for years before you can do anything).

Say drive a bus? Yeah its boring. But its not hard. Hold a 2 pers. shop? nope, not hard, and you do less hours. Etc. Heck even driving the trucks to the coal miners pay very well for a somewhat hard job.

Re: Mozilla lays off 70

#807

Post by cookiecaper »

aloisdg wrote: post #769
BrendanEich wrote: post #733

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Engine consolidation happened, the fight now is over privacy. When and if Brave is big enough we will chart our own engine course.

You know better than anybody the size of the task of rolling a homemade engine. Is this some vaporware promise or does Brave already started something around this idea?

Not Brendan, but I don't think anyone doubts that Brave would break from the Chromium homogeneity if it were practical to do so.

Production-quality browser engines are not basement projects. Even Google waited until they were the big kid on the block to undertake the project. Per Wired at [0]:

> "The browser matters," CEO Eric Schmidt says. He should know, because he was CTO of Sun Microsystems during the great browser wars of the 1990s. Google cofounders Larry Page and Sergey Brin know it, too. "When I joined Google in 2001, Larry and Sergey immediately said, 'We should build our own browser,'" Schmidt says. "And I said no."

> It wasn't the right time, Schmidt told them. "I did not believe that the company was strong enough to withstand a browser war," he says.

Piggy-backing on Google's engine for the time being is effectively turning the Goliath's momentum against itself. If Brave gets a sustainable revenue model and good-enough market penetration, I'd have every expectation that they'd feel liberated to take more direct control over the platform.

[0] https://www.wired.com/2008/09/mf-chrome/

Re: Mozilla lays off 70

#808

Post by mda »

9152ba83773b wrote: post #499
catalogia wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's appalling. How did that make people still working at Mozilla feel? I can't imagine working under somebody like that.

Gerv's behavior would have led to him being fired a long time ago in any other company. He was a toxic employee. MoCo did him and his family a favor to keep him on the payroll until his death.

Doesn't explain hostile obituary from Ceo.

Re: Mozilla lays off 70

#809

Post by ryuukk_ »

WhatIsDukkha wrote: post #39

I'm looking forward to some paid products from Mozilla (including the vpn). Privacy focused personal zeroknowledge cloud things are needed. I'd love to have a more elaborate version of Firefox Sync that worked across chromium (and I'd pay for it). The obvious calendar, mail, etc. I'd pay for a zeroknowledge hosted Berners Lee Solid service. Do this stuff and I'll pay well for it.

you look forward to help pay the 2.5 millions $ they give to their CEO? :) u are such a good boy

Re: Mozilla lays off 70

#810

Post by loulouxiv »

BrendanEich wrote: post #733
m3adow wrote: post #713

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still 100% depending on Google, still supporting a near monopolistic position for the browser. Every Chromium fork is part of the problem, not the solution.

Engine consolidation happened, the fight now is over privacy. When and if Brave is big enough we will chart our own engine course.

The more influence Google gets over the web standards, the more they will steer it in order to raise the barrier of entry for web engine makers. It will also get them more and more power over what can be commercially viable on the web. Making it easier for them to set the rules for everyone on the web seems directly detrimental to your business. As time passes by for Brave to became "big enough" (supposedly to develop a 2020 state of the art web engine), the complexity of starting a new engine from scratch would continue to grow.

It seems that keeping Gecko up to date with the web standards is the only way to have an concurrent implementation for mid-term. This will get more and more difficult to do the more marketshare Blink gets, since it gets easier for Google to shoehorn whatever they want in the web standards by first making it a "de-facto" standard by implementing it in Blink.

Post reply on HN