151–160 of 296 posts
Firefox is unfortunately becoming unrelevant. They have pretty much less than 5% global usage and it's not exactly increasing. Mozilla needs to sharpen up in my view. I use Brave because I like Brendan Eich and I am not exactly a fan of Mozilla as an org. There is no way to fund Firefox development as a user and it seems like they have focused more on side products / services lately.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But they get shouted down whenever they try to monetise independently, can't have it both ways. Either more users start donating $5-10 a month (seems worth it to me given the time I spend with their product) or they take the Google money and deal with the conflict of interest best they can. A Shuttelworth style billionaire benefactor would work as well, but I doubt one will come from the tech community as Firefox is…
Someone else said it already some time ago, but if Mozilla had just put the money they get from Google into a fund, they'd be able to develop browsers till the end of time. But they try to "innovate" and "re-invent the web" with WASM and also other completely unrelated ventures such as Rust, as nice as it may be (Rust not WASM that is). Another aspect of the Mozilla Foundation is that they're basically acting as a fi…
I just want to add, part of the problem is that it now takes millions of dollars to make/maintain a web browser.
Oh, and also, how relevant is the "future of the web" in a world where 1/3 of humanity thinks Facebook is the web?
I see a problem, though I have no alternative to offer, with the current model of organizations. It seems you are either for-profit, and then you have no ethics and do everything you can to centralize the world around you with no concern for users or their benefits. Or you're a not-for-profit foundation or the Internet Archive, where you do good things but are destined to be "poor". Are there are any "shades" between…
Well, crack open your history books and recall that the entire point of corporations is the relatively-risk-free exploitation of other people's resources (or even they themselves, as slaves.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_East_India_Company https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_India_Company - - - - By contrast, most religions are not poor and do a lot of good works. - - - - Some people, like Bill Gates, make a lo…
I wonder what will happen when Musk would have to choose between money and the benefit of humanity.
The article once more reiterates the fact that Apple doesn't allow other browser engines. You cannot even fight, there is no future ;-) on iOS.
Privacy-compromising systems aren't winning today because people seek out systems that compromise their privacy. They're winning because these companies focused on making the user interface good. Firefox will win big again when they stop talking about privacy and start making a UI that isn't lousy.
True, Apple is talking about privacy a lot these days, but they've been focusing on UX first for decades. You can't start with "here is an abstract principle that's good for you, and you should use our systems because of it". The Free Software Foundation tried that for years. It doesn't work.
Privacy is important, but it's a feature, not a product. You still need to have a great product.
Perhaps the fight should start with: - Not sending data to Google - Finding a different business model that does not almost entirely rely on Google - Not collecting user data Source: https://firefoxvschrome.com
Wow. This is so misleading that it borders on outright lying. What's your agenda?
1) This can be easilly reproduced.
https://twitter.com/jonathansampson/status/11658588961766604...
2) Over 95% of Mozilla revenue comes from Google for using Google as default search engine https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2017/mozilla-fdn-201...
3) https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/firefox/#health-report - see first item
I'd like to point out that it's still not possible to support the Firefox browser with donations directly, in a crowdsourcing fashion. Donations to Mozilla Foundation don't go to Firefox which is supported only by search/sponsorship payouts from large corporations.
Imagine a world where two or three people working for a couple of months could come up with a new browser?
Mozilla really has a big challenge. It is hard to compete with such powerful companies, creating a sustainable business with their mission without succumbing to ads or stopping to protect user privacy. It looks like an unfair game. I like the Brave business model. I wish to have the same with Firefox.
Too bad they built Brave on Chromium instead of Firefox. Which of course given that the company is run by Mozilla co-founder Brendan Eich is a bit of a shame. Firefox is showing that they are more than technically competent to keep up with Chromium and deliver great performance and functionality. With the work they are doing rewriting Firefox component by component in Rust, Google will have their work cut out keeping…
Firefox's performance on android is atrocious.
This might be able to create a new incentive layer for the web. Most users really don't care about their browser (you'd be surprised how many downloaded Chrome because it was just "simpler" than Explorer and stuck with it for no prominent reason). Introducing an incentive to use Firefox might tilt the choice (why not use a browser that pays me a few bucks - which I will put back in the web).
I'll stop at this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mozilla tried to parallelize their CSS engine multiple times in C++, and failed. Rust’s guarantees made it possible to do so. There was a talk about it at a Rust conference called “The Story of Stylo”; I’m on my phone or I’d link you.
Following my curiosity, I found: The Story of Stylo: Replacing Firefox's CSS engine with Rust https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6SSTRr2mFU Woo, 9M lines of C/C++ to 85K lines of Rust.. Author's slides: https://www.joshmatthews.net/rbr17/