21–30 of 310 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you elaborate? Is Mozilla paying off people who try to start FF forks? Because I could use a bailout. More seriously, is the suggestion that FF is too complex to properly fork without full time devs?
It's 20 million lines of security sensitive code. Of course it's difficult to properly fork. The same is true of Chromium, btw.
How is this any different from a standard Firefox install with telemetry turned off
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you elaborate? Is Mozilla paying off people who try to start FF forks? Because I could use a bailout. More seriously, is the suggestion that FF is too complex to properly fork without full time devs?
It's 20 million lines of security sensitive code. Of course it's difficult to properly fork. The same is true of Chromium, btw.
Genuine questions. Aren't such forks harming the actual Firefox developers by decreasing the Firefox user base? Doesn't it help the Google monopoly on the web?
I'd say if there's any harm, it would rather be related to money, as in Mozilla has less to bargain for their deals with their sponsors. However, seeing how these forks are just "cosmetic", they still use the same rendering engine, which doesn't increase Google's relative user base. As far as this monopoly is concerned, all these forks are still Firefox.
Not in the website statistics I guess, unless the forks present themselves as Firefox, which I doubt.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Money.
> Money That's incredibly vague. Can you explain? How are the many forks/variants of Chromium and WebKit not affected by this "money" factor in the same way
Genuine questions. Aren't such forks harming the actual Firefox developers by decreasing the Firefox user base? Doesn't it help the Google monopoly on the web?
I think that Mozilla is harming Firefox much more with their decisions. Adding ads to address bar and sending metadata to unknown third parties alienated lots of users, I can’t blame them for looking for alternatives - or making one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Money.
> Money That's incredibly vague. Can you explain? How are the many forks/variants of Chromium and WebKit not affected by this "money" factor in the same way
> How are the many forks/variants of Chromium and WebKit not affected by this "money" factor in the same way
They are, but the main Webkit/Chromium forks are either large companies (microsoft) or companies trying to make money off of their forks (Brave, Vivaldi).
This here is trying to do the exact opposite. Vivaldi has ~50 employees, Brave has 150 and tens of millions in investments. Even if not all of them work on the fork management, that's a lot more resources than a dozen peeps doing that in their spare time.
Why are there not more successful forks of Firefox? While it's still my browser of choice, I think it's safe to say there are a significant number of developers who are not happy with the leadership of Mozilla. What's preventing other forks from taking off?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29106440
Another is that doing so, and sustaining the effort, is a non-trivial amount of work. Throwing up a web page and a single release is one thing. Keeping up with the release cadence of an org like Mozilla, and the demands and expectations of a browser user base is something entirely different.
Also, "Libre" is a terrible moniker.
Why are there not more successful forks of Firefox? While it's still my browser of choice, I think it's safe to say there are a significant number of developers who are not happy with the leadership of Mozilla. What's preventing other forks from taking off?
How do the people working on it get money to cover their bills? If they don’t have this they will work on something that does that.
A financial model is usually the blocker.
Consider this, a lot of the people who work on Linux or many other projects are corporate backed. The companies pay the developers.