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

Mozilla Thunderbolt

thunderbolt.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 366 posts

Re: Mozilla Thunderbolt

#161

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

Neywiny wrote: post #137
ryukoposting wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> already painful and readily apparent, stagnation of your browser What's wrong with Firefox? There are several things Firefox does that it's annoying to live without in other browsers (video pop-outs, competent ad blocking, etc). Is there some core feature that's missing? I'm subjected to Edge at work and I couldn't tell you a single thing it does that I'd want FF to do. > and our standards bodies as entities distin…

Web usb and serial are not just missing, last I checked Mozilla is opting to not implement based on their moral stance. It just puts them behind for some stuff.

> It just puts them behind for some stuff.

Yeah, it really undermines their ability to compromise user security and privacy.

Re: Mozilla Thunderbolt

#162

Post by giancarlostoro »

drzaiusx11 wrote: post #81

For anyone reading this that has worked on the launch of this new product (or the many others of their ilk throughout the years) under the various Mozilla orgs, I mean no disrespect, however I feel it's important to not mince words these days.. I implore ANYONE at Mozilla org to please, please stop working on projects distracting from the complex and necessary work of browser and web standards stewardship. That alone…

I'm going to sound crazy, and I've said this on HN before, but I wish CloudFlare or someone who would truly appreciate the effort and investment, would buy out Mozilla and have them oxidizing the browser again. Firefox was at its best when they were going through that effort, and since they put a pause on it, Firefox has been so "meh" for many years now, and embedding things nobody asked for. A faster fully oxidized browser on the other hand would be loved by many.

Re: Mozilla Thunderbolt

#163

Post by giancarlostoro »

time4tea wrote: post #140
drzaiusx11 wrote: post #81

For anyone reading this that has worked on the launch of this new product (or the many others of their ilk throughout the years) under the various Mozilla orgs, I mean no disrespect, however I feel it's important to not mince words these days.. I implore ANYONE at Mozilla org to please, please stop working on projects distracting from the complex and necessary work of browser and web standards stewardship. That alone…

Firefox is pretty cool. Use it every day. Blocks ads Multi account containers Dev tools very good I never notice that it is in any way slow, except for those sites that need infinity cpu on any browser, like jira. What specifically is the issue? To my mind it quietly just gets on with things.

I use it daily, but Chromes dev tools are better. I always wind up back in Chrome to debug things.

Re: Mozilla Thunderbolt

#164

Post by [deleted] »

crazygringo wrote: post #78

Wow this is a confusing name. At a glance it looks identical to Mozilla Thunderbird, but has nothing in common. And then of course it's also the same as a well-known hardware interface. I know it's hard to come up with names and pretty much everything is used by something else, but this seems particularly bad.

[deleted]

Re: Mozilla Thunderbolt

#165

Post by singpolyma3 »

drzaiusx11 wrote: post #99
ojubknobugh wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Mozilla should not be a business, full stop. The fact that is being run like one, albeit poorly is exactly the problem. I don't think you realize the irony in calling my post childish here. "C'mon" I guess?

Maybe they shouldn't be, but they are. As a for profit corporation with employees they are very much a business not just "run like one"

Re: Mozilla Thunderbolt

#166

Post by Ethee »

drzaiusx11 wrote: post #153
kgraves wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would Mozilla replace the $500M a year from Google to not be a business?

Myself and I believe many others are willing to put money where our mouths are for an organization leading by example with regards to stewardship, much as this org has done in the past prior, instead of all these continued distractions, and ESPECIALLY if they stop swallowing this poisonous "donation" from Google. The fact that they do makes me wary of sending them a single penny. They'll just keep doing shit like the…

I can understand where you're coming from, but this seems a little misguided. Are you personally trying to pledge at least 1 full devs salary to Mozilla in exchange for less AI products? At the end of the day this really comes down to the money. If you want Mozilla to do the things you say you want from them, they need more than donations. Good will doesn't build a browser, that shit's expensive. It's like you're asking for a games studio to just give you an MMO out of the goodness of their heart for a few scraps from people who support their mission. The world doesn't work that way, without products like these I imagine Mozilla wouldn't be around much longer in the way you describe considering most of their salaries are paid directly by that 'poison' you describe.

Re: Mozilla Thunderbolt

#168

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

rothific wrote: post #106
CivBase wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm perfectly fine with Mozilla working on other things as long as those things are profitable or at least self-funded. As long as they are not leeching donated resources from Firefox or Thunderbird, I don't see a problem. However, I wish I had some kind of assurance that the money I donate to Mozilla would go to Firefox and not some other project like this.

Thunderbolt was funded from a grant, not donations. https://github.com/thunderbird/thunderbolt/blob/main/docs/fa...

I think the rest of that line is really kind of important:

> Thunderbolt is funded through a grant from Mozilla.

Is there any way that that's not taking dollars out of the same organization that's funding Firefox or thunderbird?

Re: Mozilla Thunderbolt

#169

Post by IFC_LLC »

This was the MOST confusing release I've seen in years.

Okay, it took me some time that the mail client is called "ThunderBIRD", not the BOLT. Not that I've used it much. But why the logo in github still shows TunderBIRD?

It looks like Mozilla is trying to catch the band wagon for no particular reason. They don't need it AT ALL. But they just jumped in along for a ride.

Re: Mozilla Thunderbolt

#170

Post by seabrookmx »

CamouflagedKiwi wrote: post #73

What even is this? A chat frontend to arbitrary model providers on the backend - I guess that's sort of useful not to have to build yourself but it doesn't feel like the amazing thing they're trying to hype. Some of the features seem a bit weird to me too - like end-to-end encryption? There isn't a server intermediary, so you already have that with TLS to the model provider.

Yeah it seems similar to Gemini Enterprise. There you can deploy "apps" (basically front-ends) on top of the LLM that come pre-configured with plugins to access Google sheets, Databases, your Jira boards, etc.

So all this is doing is adding context for the LLM and some persistence.

I have yet to see a compelling use case for Gemini Enterprise at my company but we're still experimenting with it.

Post reply on HN