131–140 of 167 posts
And now my address bar expands on click, because browser.urlbar.update1 was removed from about:config. I knew this day was coming, but I'm still not happy it's here. The movement is distracting, and the alignment of the bar's expanded state is terrible. There's a reason most graphic design follows a grid system. We need a way to turn this off. I realize the old about:config flag was tied to a legacy code pathway, but…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't hate them because I like, trust and want to support Mozilla. I happily click on them. I'd be happier if I knew how my data is being stored, however, since the recommendations seem to be well tailored to my interests.
This appears to be the description of exactly that: https://getpocket.com/privacy I find it to be rather well-written for this sort of thing. As in, it was written with an intent to communicate what it's saying, which is the opposite of the usual.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's dangerous to depend on a single company (that also happens to have a competing product). What happens if the money stops coming?
> that also happens to have a competing product Firefox is a "feature" for Google Chrome. The day Google stops paying mozilla and mozilla close shop, they will get the same treatment Google itself set up in courts against Microsoft for IE6. It's pretty much protection money for their past selfs.
It's cheaper to keep mozilla barely alive than to pay lawyers and governments for anti-trust lawsuits around the globe.
And they get to harvest search data from firefox users as a bonus.
Everyone not happy with pocket recommendations, what is the alternate source of revenue? Not enough will pay for the product. On the other hand Mozilla has to compete with Apple, Google & Microsoft, all of whom are fighting hard for the Web. Mozilla is doing good overall. They are doing some fundamental work to get back the technical edge, still trying to keep the future of the platform open with WebAssembly and thei…
Hold on there for a second. When Pocket was first introduced in Firefox, the official party line was that it was just something temporary donated by the good people of Pocket to plug a feature hole so that you, dear users, won't suffer much while we develop a proper replacement. And now this has somehow transformed into a vitally important revenue stream?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This appears to be the description of exactly that: https://getpocket.com/privacy I find it to be rather well-written for this sort of thing. As in, it was written with an intent to communicate what it's saying, which is the opposite of the usual.
It's rather long to be honest. But thanks for posting.
Everyone not happy with pocket recommendations, what is the alternate source of revenue? Not enough will pay for the product. On the other hand Mozilla has to compete with Apple, Google & Microsoft, all of whom are fighting hard for the Web. Mozilla is doing good overall. They are doing some fundamental work to get back the technical edge, still trying to keep the future of the platform open with WebAssembly and thei…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think you get what I said. I said: if they stopped throwing money down the drain with the politised foundation and the executives stopped raising their salaries they wouldn't have to run ads and maybe they could even pay their engineers more money.
Can you elaborate on the ways in which you feel the Mozilla Foundation is politicized? Their advocacy page[1] feels incredibly vanilla: it emphasizes private communication, online safety, and collaboration with generally well-regarded groups like the EFF. [1]: https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/advocacy/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They could use the donations to improve Firefox, to pay the salaries of the engineers, instead of all the political nonsense they do with the foundation. Yes, your donations go towards that. And they could cut the salaries of management instead of giving themselves raises. Instead we got ads in the home page.
1. They are doing it with substantially less budget than their competitors. 2. Developers shouldn't have to build software for the greater good by sacrificing their livelihood. 3. I am pretty sure many people building all this amazing tech can definitely get paid better in other places 4. These days when someone like Facebook fails to be bold, I would prefer to support someone like Mozilla who walks the talk.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They could use the donations to improve Firefox, to pay the salaries of the engineers, instead of all the political nonsense they do with the foundation. Yes, your donations go towards that. And they could cut the salaries of management instead of giving themselves raises. Instead we got ads in the home page.
Working for openness on the Web is not "political nonsense". Without an open Web, there would be no Firefox.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1. They are doing it with substantially less budget than their competitors. 2. Developers shouldn't have to build software for the greater good by sacrificing their livelihood. 3. I am pretty sure many people building all this amazing tech can definitely get paid better in other places 4. These days when someone like Facebook fails to be bold, I would prefer to support someone like Mozilla who walks the talk.
> 2. Developers shouldn't have to build software for the greater good by sacrificing their livelihood. No one is talking about the developers. Mitchell Baker received $2,458,350 in 2018. That's up from $1,035,114 in 2014. Have you seen the incredible results which justified this tremendous raise? Personally, I haven't.
His raise is 100% justified...unless your implying that any software dev pulling in 150k would be able to negotiate a deal like that.