141–150 of 310 posts
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?
mozilla is not the kind of entity I'd want to have control over the web either, considering the shit they feel comfortable doing even as an underdog with 3% market share.
I recently looked at the changes they make to the default preferences and so many are nothing to do with privacy, and some of those that are also reduce the user's safety (e.g. disabling Google Safebrowsing). I'd advise any prospective users to comb over the changes very carefully before using it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have some color packs for you, but they are only available briefly.
Yeah, what the fuck was that?
https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/introducing-new...
But reading this and answering for Mozilla staff should get them some feedback:
> What’s next for Firefox colorways?
We’ll see. We’ll go where our customers take us.
Well, I saw and I clicked to skip this BS.
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?
No. Mozilla is actually helping Google build and maintain a monopoly on search (for money) and is accepting the scraps that Google leaves on the table from the browser market. Mozilla has continuously and repeatedly fucked up when it comes to defaulting to grab telemetry and shady deals with Google, to asking for money while spending way too much salaries for its execs for a supposed non-profit corporation (that is e…
"grab telemetery" - that data is really, really useful in making development decisions, and we are hyperparanoid about what we collect. From an armchair, it may seem like you can make the right guess about how to eg adjust garbage collection scheduling priorities, but actual data always surprises you in one way or another. It can make the difference between spending a month on a tough project that ends up making no difference for the vast majority of users, and having a month to spend on something more impactful.
I really don't like to speculate on executive pay, but I'm pretty baffled why this is seen as such a big deal. Your argument sounds valid to me. So does the argument that we're talking about the CEO of a tech company that is competing directly with multiple Big Tech competitors, and perhaps paying comparatively bargain basement prices is not the smartest idea. Which is not to say that I'm happy about the layoffs.
Mozilla has messed up on a number of things, multiple times, including at least one time when it ended up (as in, made a deal to and carried it out) sending a bunch of data to a third party. (It was more nuanced than is generally appreciated, but I won't go there.)
I sincerely apologize that Mozilla isn't up to the pristine standards of the big technology companies. /s
I'm not going to explain the MoCo/MoFo structure here. I'll just say that MoCo most definitely pays taxes, MoFo asks for donations because it's a nonprofit with its own initiatives and direction, and you can get tons of information about the finances involving both because of MoFo's nonprofit status and the resulting annual report. (MoCo = Mozilla Corporation, MoFo = Mozilla Foundation, MoFo owns MoCo.)
The Google deal is, like, how MoCo makes money and is able to exist. What's shady about it? I'd certainly like the funding to be more independent. Maybe Mozilla can try drilling for oil on the land it doesn't own or start selling off the user data it doesn't collect?
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’ve tried all the Firefox forks I could find, including LibreWolf. It’s not your no-brainer “Non-Mozilla Firefox” you can just switch to. Basic browsing may work, but nothing remotely close to “web-app” will, because they disabled all modern APIs due to privacy concerns.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it becoming a truism that (in this space) the profit motive will inevitably lead to user abuse? Maybe we need more 501c3 and benefit corps providing basic stuff like an internet browser?
Nationalize new browsers and OSes' development, or subsidize them. Governments do it with things like energy, space tech aviation and even telecom, but surprisingly not their software foundation.
They've already adopted some infrastructure software projects into their governmental operations, not only using them, but also participating and maintaining them.
They also have many initiatives mandating the use of open source where applicable, and also suggestions of liability for closed source software by law. Harr! Unheard of! Those naughty Gauls!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Its not free or open software, so using it is a step back.
This indeed is true and I truly wish they made Vivaldi open source. However, free and open software is an ideal. Like any ideal, it can be used as a front and abused inna way that defeats its purpose. In its original form, free and open is noble. But since then, corporations have figured out how to monetise it. So, IMHO, we need to be very careful about anything free and open coming from corporations because their co…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you assume it's necessary? FWIW, I'd rate quite a bit of what it does as "not necessary".
On another thread, I was told: "Firefox is feeding your data to Google. You need to disable it in the user.js file"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> they've lost sight of what running a sustainable business in this space would look like Is the claim that it is economically impossible to create a browser without turning it in to surveillance malware? To the extent that's true, it is the best argument yet for shutting down the web.
Are you implying that Firefox is "surveillance malware"? Precisely what surveillance are you referring to? Telemetry isn't surveillance. Recommended content (e.g. on the default New Tab page) doesn't involve surveillance.
As a categorical statement, this is false. "Not all telemetry is surveillance" is true.
Telemetry is exfiltrated data the user did not ask to send. The line between telemetry and surveillance depends on the use and intent of the data recipient, not (necessarily) the data itself, and that use is opaque to the person whose actions generated the data.
It is interesting to note that telemetry can become surveillance after it is collected. Perhaps a new manager has a different plan, perhaps the cops show up with a subpoena.