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

Mozilla's open source AI strategy

blog.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 213 posts

Re: Mozilla's open source AI strategy

#31

Post by morcus »

Larrikin wrote: post #24
nusl wrote: post #12

I guess replies on this thread are evident that Mozilla has lost much of the trust and goodwill it once enjoyed. Admittedly I am also very skeptical that Mozilla has the ability or genuine interest to make this work.

There is always a pile on on Firebox for not being perfect. Sometimes with valid complaints. But if you dig deeper nearly always the commenter is using a version of Chrome and justifies it over Firefox for a very shallow or outdated reason. Firefox would do well to listen to some of the criticism about the browser and ignore the noise about anything else There's also the cohort of bad web developers that only test on…

As someone that uses Firefox as my main browser on desktop and mobile, I am curious here - what exactly are the complaints with Firefox?

I'm using 3+ year old hardware that was mid-range even when it was new and it seems to do everything I would want with reasonable performance.

Re: Mozilla's open source AI strategy

#32

Post by angoragoats »

codebyaditya wrote: post #28
philipallstar wrote: post #14

> Mozilla was born to change this, and Firefox succeeded beyond what most people thought possible — dropping Internet Explorer’s market share to 55% in just a few years and ushering in the Web 2.0 era. Is this true? I can see from here[0] that its peak was 32%, as IE was really on the back burner but before Chrome had fully risen to dominance, but I wouldn't claim that it was responsible for IE's market share drop. […

You’re right on the numbers....Firefox never had majority share. The stronger claim is causal influence, not dominance. I recently read somewhere that the Firefox (and later Chrome) forced standards compliance and broke IE’s de-facto monopoly mindset. IE’s decline was gradual and multi-factor, but Firefox clearly shifted developer and user expectations.

No one is claiming, here or in the article, that Firefox ever had a majority share.

I don’t know if the 55% number for IE is 100% correct but it sounds like the right ballpark to me. The browser market was a lot more fragmented 15+ years ago, so saying that IE had 55% market share and Firefox had 32%, leaving 13% for other browsers, sounds completely right to me.

Re: Mozilla's open source AI strategy

#34

Post by rafterydj »

I'll be contrarian to the thread sentiment and say: Mozilla has misstepped in the past, and will continue to do so, and they're partially funded by competitors for antitrust reasons, etc.

That said, I can't really disagree with anything in this. As a developer (and socially conscious human) I want to move in the direction of openness.

Re: Mozilla's open source AI strategy

#36

Post by pjmlp »

no_wizard wrote: post #30
pjmlp wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Including everyone that ships Chrome with their application as "native" app. VSCode gets a pass, because apparently it is the only programmer's editor that many only care about providing plugins nowadays.

The ubiquity of their plugin model is why. Near all editors have a VS code plugin compatible layer

Yeah, and with it Eclipse wins a second time, especially on embedded where Eclipse CDT forks were replaced by VSCode forks.

"Project Ticino: Microsoft's Erich Gamma on Visual Studio Code past, present, and future"

https://www.theregister.com/2021/01/28/erich_gamma_on_vs_cod...

Re: Mozilla's open source AI strategy

#37

Post by diffeomorphism »

philipallstar wrote: post #14

> Mozilla was born to change this, and Firefox succeeded beyond what most people thought possible — dropping Internet Explorer’s market share to 55% in just a few years and ushering in the Web 2.0 era. Is this true? I can see from here[0] that its peak was 32%, as IE was really on the back burner but before Chrome had fully risen to dominance, but I wouldn't claim that it was responsible for IE's market share drop. […

When do you think the "web 2.0 era" was?

Web 2.0 is around 2003 or so and chrome would not even exist for another few years. Giving Firefox/phoenix/Netscape the majority credit for the first fall of IE seems accurate.

The rise of chrome happened afterwards and by then IE also fell much deeper than 55%.

Re: Mozilla's open source AI strategy

#38

Post by drnick1 »

The open source community will start taking Firefox seriously again when all the AI shit is removed for good and real improvements to performance and privacy are made.

Despite all the posturing about "respecting your privacy and freedom," the stock configuration of Firefox is trivially fingerprintable. At the very least, a privacy-focused browser should adopt the Tor patches and report standardized spoofed values for hardware components and disable by default all privacy invasive anti-features like WebGL. This isn't difficult to do, but illustrates the gap between empty promises and what is actually delivered.

Re: Mozilla's open source AI strategy

#40

Post by embedding-shape »

no_wizard wrote: post #30
pjmlp wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Including everyone that ships Chrome with their application as "native" app. VSCode gets a pass, because apparently it is the only programmer's editor that many only care about providing plugins nowadays.

The ubiquity of their plugin model is why. Near all editors have a VS code plugin compatible layer

> Near all editors have a VS code plugin compatible layer

Huh, never heard about this before, and took a look at emacs and vim/neovim as those are the two most popular editors I know of, neither can run VS code plugins, that'd be crazy if true.

Post reply on HN