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

Brave layoffs

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 160 posts

Re: Brave layoffs

#151

Post by dmarcos »

flagrant_taco wrote: post #139
dmarcos wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. I see chromium as the linux kernel. Piece of fundamental infrastructure that does the the heavy lifting and one can reconfigure, tweak, add features or eventually fork if needed. Never been easier to build an independent browser.

The open web is dead if the only option is to base every browser on a Google core. How do specs fit into this if every browser is just a UI shell around chrome? Where is the competition driving innovation of the web platform when the only competitive landscape is how pretty you can make your toolbars and bookmarks? We need independent groups of passionate people making sure that the web platform is focused on the bes…

Keep in mind that when using chromium you can innovate on any part of the stack not just the UI. You can focus on what matters to you: You can reimplement CSS animations, the network stack, add any new APIs, define any privacy or security policies…

A robust and reusable browser engine lowers the barrier of entry for anyone to innovate and differentiate. Browser compatibility is close to solved since everyone shares most of the implementation. Better user experience across the board at lower cost.

Specific examples are Brave, Opera, or more recently the Meta Browser shipping in the Meta Quest: very small team now leading the WebXR standard. it wouldn’t be possible without Chromium.

Re: Brave layoffs

#152

Post by mthoms »

charcircuit wrote: post #134
mthoms wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thats nearly exactly what I said? - If you typed the domain into the address bar, and pressed enter (obviously) the affiliate id got appended. I'm not clear what distinction you're making here.

It's like saying that if I type news into the omnibar and hit enter the browser appends .ycombinator.com That isn't really what is happening. It shows a preview for news.ycombinator.com and hitting enter confirms that option. The distinction is one is clear to the user and the other is a modification that happens behind the scenes.

I never implied it was hidden. I’m not sure why you’re arguing with me.

Re: Brave layoffs

#153

Post by the_third_wave »

the_third_wave wrote: post #149
jjav wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Check the Mozilla foundation page for all the crap they fund instead of the browser. Notwithstanding that, they still put out firefox. And Firefox is a far superior browser to any of the alternatives if you care about user-centric control and privacy. So to anyone who cares even a little about being able about these things, supporting Firefox is the way to go. If a mythical even-better browser shows up, great. But…

> Notwithstanding that, they still put out firefox Firefox was created by pre-Baker Mozilla which was an organisation focused mostly on - to coopt the terminology used by those who coopted Mozilla later - "software justice". When Eich was ousted (for voicing an opinion he shared with people like Barack Obama [1]) and Baker took his place she set a course towards different goals: Mozilla was going to focus more on soc…

To those who feel the need to vote down instead of coming with counter-arguments I want to ask what you think is wrong in my reasoning. As far as I can see Baker has been a net-negative for Mozilla both due the politicisation of the organisation as well as her financial mis-management. Tell me where I'm wrong instead of trying to get my message greyed-out. I was there (at the IETF conference) when the Netscape source was released, was among the first to build the code, have done my part with testing and patching and still use Firefox. I see Baker's mismanagement and misdirection of Mozilla as a tragic mistake. What are your arguments?

Re: Brave layoffs

#154

Post by jjav »

the_third_wave wrote: post #149
jjav wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Check the Mozilla foundation page for all the crap they fund instead of the browser. Notwithstanding that, they still put out firefox. And Firefox is a far superior browser to any of the alternatives if you care about user-centric control and privacy. So to anyone who cares even a little about being able about these things, supporting Firefox is the way to go. If a mythical even-better browser shows up, great. But…

> Notwithstanding that, they still put out firefox Firefox was created by pre-Baker Mozilla which was an organisation focused mostly on - to coopt the terminology used by those who coopted Mozilla later - "software justice". When Eich was ousted (for voicing an opinion he shared with people like Barack Obama [1]) and Baker took his place she set a course towards different goals: Mozilla was going to focus more on soc…

> Firefox was created by pre-Baker Mozilla which was an organisation focused mostly on..

Yes, I'm familiar with the history (fun: I even have an original signed CD of the initial Netscape open source release, handed out at the release party in San Francisco which I attended).

Mozilla of today could perhaps be more focused on the browser.

Nevertheless, they continue to support it, maintain it and release it. If you want a browser today in 2023 that puts out user control and privacy first, this is it, Firefox.

Re: Brave layoffs

#155

Post by the_third_wave »

jjav wrote: post #154
the_third_wave wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Notwithstanding that, they still put out firefox Firefox was created by pre-Baker Mozilla which was an organisation focused mostly on - to coopt the terminology used by those who coopted Mozilla later - "software justice". When Eich was ousted (for voicing an opinion he shared with people like Barack Obama [1]) and Baker took his place she set a course towards different goals: Mozilla was going to focus more on soc…

> Firefox was created by pre-Baker Mozilla which was an organisation focused mostly on.. Yes, I'm familiar with the history (fun: I even have an original signed CD of the initial Netscape open source release, handed out at the release party in San Francisco which I attended). Mozilla of today could perhaps be more focused on the browser. Nevertheless, they continue to support it, maintain it and release it. If you wa…

> Nevertheless, they continue to support it, maintain it and release it.

Baker's organisation continues to release the browser which pulls in several hundreds of millions from Google. This money is for the largest part not used to improve the browser or the software ecosystem surrounding it - Firefox sync is withering on the vine, Thunderbird has been spun off, Seamonkey has been spun off a long time ago, Servo has been terminated (the project is continued by volunteers), the Rust team has been let go, etc. The money is used for political activism and to fund Baker (who again raised her own remuneration, from $2.5 million to $3 million) [1] and her organisation.

That Firefox still is being released is more despite of Baker's managerial decisions than thanks to them. Mozilla is kept alive by Google because the presence of Firefox on the market is an insurance against claims of a monopoly. That insurance is getting less effective now that Firefox has dropped to a low single digit market share so it remains to be seen whether Google will continue to shore up Mozilla for much longer.

> If you want a browser today in 2023 that puts out user control and privacy first, this is it, Firefox.

Yes, that is still true because of the work done by Mozilla developers and volunteers. Now imagine how much further the browser and related projects could have been had Mozilla been led by someone who would use the proceeds of the Google deal to further software and ecosystem development instead of what largely amounts to political virtue signalling, "color of change" and other PACs and similar activities.

Baker is not the right person to lead this organisation, she is a political activist [2] better suited for an NGO or PAC.

[1] https://techrights.org/o/2022/02/17/mozilla-salaries/

[2] https://blog.mozilla.org/en/mozilla/we-need-more-than-deplat...

Re: Brave layoffs

#156

Post by mthoms »

VancouverMan wrote: post #132
mthoms wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Private sector highways here in Canada are a disaster and an embarrassment. They have near zero public support (aside from libertarians).

The 407 is actually a pretty good example of government inefficiency when it comes to planning and building highways. It exists because the 401 wasn't built with sufficient long-term capacity, even after it was widened significantly. I wouldn't really consider the 407 a true "private" highway, though. It's more a case of the private sector rescuing the government from a typical government-created debacle, and last I…

I have. It's a nice experience but boy is it expensive.

How do you imagine increasing private ownership of roads would work? It's near-impossible to ever have true competition in the sector so market forces wouldn't work as they normally do. Where's the incentive to innovate? Where's the incentive to lower prices?

And good luck implementing a "proper" system where there are two tiers of citizens: The rich and the rest. That's just not a good recipe for the cohesiveness of society.

Re: Brave layoffs

#157

Post by kyleee »

twism wrote: post #95

Enough is enough. Y'all need to pack it up and go home. The big boy browsers are making features that make websites seem like native applications while y'all are still struggling making css look right. Maybe this is not a brave thing specifically since last I looked brave was based on chromium so should have feature parity with chrome browsers, but then what's the point? Are we just pointing things to different serve…

Having google in control of the only large browser software project is an existential threat to the open web, so it would be great to have many competing browsers all flourishing

Re: Brave layoffs

#158

Post by BrendanEich »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #19

I'm going to treat this like a product engineering discussion User Story: As a Private Citizen and Engineer, I want a graphical multi-input interface to load, view, interact with and post documents to remote and local HTTP servers ("web-browsing") on any personal computing device. I want web-browsing to have out of the box default security and privacy guardrails that are well documented can be disabled or modified by…

That seed stage investment is a tiny slice of the cap table and has no control, just ride-along preferred shares. Your aversion to VC is something I share, but not to this IQ-lowering degree.

Re: Brave layoffs

#159

Post by BrendanEich »

sirwhinesalot wrote: post #86
hooverd wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only thing Firefox users hate more than Mozilla taking money from Google is Mozilla making money from other sources. Why can't the Mozilla team just be ascetic hairshirts who make exactly the browser they want and bring XUL back while they're at it. /s

The Mozilla Foundation is a non-profit that owns the for-profit Mozilla Corporation. Step 1 is get rid of the for-profit corporation that pays its CEO 2.4 million dollars a year to lose market share. That's 24 well-paid developers, or double that from lower-income countries. The foundation had a revenue of $441 million in 2020. We know that in 2014 ~90% of their revenue come from its search-engine deal with Google. T…

> 2.4 million

Try > 5.6 million. https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2021/mozilla-fdn-990...

Re: Brave layoffs

#160

Post by soundnote »

cpeterso wrote: post #108
bigstrat2003 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

If you read more than that post’s title, you will see that it’s calling for alternatives to deplatforming.

The alternatives aren't exactly benign, though: Mozilla seems completely fine with others deciding what I should see on the Internet (those others being politically aligned with Mozilla, of course), which is what their "amplify factual voices" point really means. The list is just left-leaning mainstream outlets whose quality has taken a nosedive, and if it comes to fact checking, we all know ostensible fact checking outlets police narrative adherence more than factuality.
Post reply on HN