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

171–180 of 366 posts

Re: Mozilla Thunderbolt

#171

Post by maxloh »

soapdog wrote: post #2

oh mozilla, why don't you just focus on Firefox. That is all we want.

Mozilla needs money to support the development of Firefox (and the payroll of its high-salary executives).

For now, they mainly rely on Google for that money. Google pays them to avoid antitrust cases, to show the courts that they are not a monopoly and that "alternatives" exist. For example, the DOJ once proposed that Google be forced to sell off Chrome.

However, if another entity has control over your budget, they also have control over your product. If Firefox becomes "too good" to be a true competitor in the consumer space, the funding might be reduced or even cut off.

Creating a new source of revenue allows Mozilla to improve Firefox even beyond the point Google feels "comfortable" with.

Re: Mozilla Thunderbolt

#172

Post by spudlyo »

eipi10_hn wrote: post #128
JCTheDenthog wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because Mozilla is wasting money on something other than their core product, once again.

Thunderbird is under MZLA Technologies Corporation, their money and resources are unrelated to Mozilla Corporation, who pays money for their Firefox.

I’m not sure if it’s fair to describe a "wholly owned subsidiary" as unrelated.

> Thunderbolt is funded through a dedicated investment from Mozilla and is being developed by a separate team focused on enterprise AI products, distinct from Thunderbird’s donation-supported consumer product work.

Emphasis mine.

Re: Mozilla Thunderbolt

#173

Post by realusername »

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #161
Neywiny wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There's a lot of good use-cases of Web usb, you can't just cut everything which might have privacy aspects otherwise the browsers wouldn't have canvas or even gpu rendering.

Re: Mozilla Thunderbolt

#174

Post by ferfumarma »

giancarlostoro wrote: post #162
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…

I feel dumb, but what does oxidized mean in this context?

Re: Mozilla Thunderbolt

#175

Post by fooker »

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.

[dead]

Re: Mozilla Thunderbolt

#177

Post by galangalalgol »

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #161
Neywiny wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Essentially all of Firefox' incompatibilities with a website reduce to Firefox not allowing the users to be tracked or fingerprinted by default. Webapps that rely on fingerprinting as a replacement for device tokens will likely not work. Because fingerprinting is bad and I don't want it to work. The people your bank pays to implement that are the same companies used for cross site tracking. It only works because tracking works. ReCaptcha can break for similar reasons, but there are better options for captcha and the need for captcha itself is possible to eliminate with various strategies depending on what it is being used to mitigate.

Re: Mozilla Thunderbolt

#178

Post by bloppe »

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…

The foundation never gets more than 10M / year in donations. You really think their donation rate could possibly go up by more than 50x just by cutting ties with Google?

Re: Mozilla Thunderbolt

#179

Post by oceansweep »

ferfumarma wrote: post #174
giancarlostoro wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I feel dumb, but what does oxidized mean in this context?

migrate to rust.
Post reply on HN