181–190 of 227 posts
I keep hoping some of the laid off devs will fork the project and we can get back to a mostly volunteer model focused on just the browser. I'd much rather donate to something like that than the Mozilla foundation, at least as it currently stands.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Depends on your goals. Facebook has done well selling outraged eyeballs.
The outrage Facebook feasts on is not directed at Facebook. That is just a byproduct. Here Mozilla decided to place a nice target on their backs asking for money.
Cui Bono as they say.
"The advertisement boosts Mozilla VPN, a paid open-source VPN service that constitutes a crucial revenue source for the not-for-profit company." In 2021, Mozilla CEO received $5M in compensation. I don't really consider them a non-profit.
Mozilla's primary sources of revenue are for setting the default search engine. $500 Million.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Jeff Bezos donated more than Eich in 2018 to Cory Gardner, who is anti-equal marriage, anti-LGBT+ discrimination laws, and against same-sex adoption. It's interesting we don't hold the same standard to Bezos, or speculate that Bezos' donation affected his hiring pool.
It's not interesting at all. Exactly who was going to fire Bezos from Amazon? Also, I know this is the internet, but disapproving of one person doesn't mean that you're promoting another random person that wasn't even part of the conversation. If you want to bring Bezos in, at a minimum you're required to find a single person, living or dead, who thinks that Bezos's donations were fine but Eich's were terrible.
I know no one is promoting Bezos. I'm just saying it's ridiculous how Bezos gets to white-wash incidents like this while causing untold harm to society, while Eich legitimately was furthering good causes in good ways and a single personal superficial detail prevented him from continuing to do that.
Bring back the browser wars. I'm tired of only having essentially two browsers to choose from, both from unethical companies that use slimy marketing speak to disguise their intentions.
https://www.techspot.com/news/98811-windows-365-boot-paid-su...
https://www.theregister.com/2023/05/24/windows_365_boot_prev...
The browser does a lot of my computing now, and I'm not surprised the "General Purpose Browser" is disappearing, replaced by an appliance with user-hostile behavior that might, maybe, sometimes ... give you some internet browsing. Remember AOL Online?
The solution isn't very complicated. Copyleft [1] uses copyright to preserve user freedom, instead of restricting it -- so the company that wants to monetize the software can't block the user from making copies of the source code.
Let's skip the quibbling over Affero GPL, that's boring. How about inventing a license, where the license restricts the valid activites of the software?
A browser restricted to only make network requests authorized by the user. An OS restricted from spying on the user. A computer that is personal again.
> The most recent relevant report on Mozilla’s bug tracking platform received the "RESOLVED WORKSFORME" tag Typical Mozilla. At this point I don’t know why they even allow bug submissions from the public at all.
This isn’t a bug, so the resolution is expected. What I don’t understand is how Mozilla thought this would work out.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I read a conspiracy that Google has paid off Mozilla management to specifically sabotage the browser development. Actions like this make it hard to dispute the moves that frequently seem deliberately anti-user.
> I read a conspiracy that Google has paid off Mozilla management to specifically sabotage the browser development. Actions like this make it hard to dispute the moves that frequently seem deliberately anti-user. IIRC, didn't Mozilla lay off some R&D team that was doing some promising work on modernizing and improving its browser engine?