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

311–320 of 366 posts

Re: Mozilla Thunderbolt

#311

Post by yencabulator »

exceptione wrote: post #125
spudlyo wrote: post #15

Chrome on Linux is ~1.47 times faster than Firefox on the Jetstream 3 benchmark as recently reported by Phoronix[0]. That's how we want you to spend the money Mozilla, keeping up with your well-funded rival Google, and making it so we don't end up with a browser monoculture. These sorts of distractions just piss me off, and are not part of your core mission. [0]: https://www.phoronix.com/review/firefox-chrome-2026

I remember that Firefox is orders of magnitude more performant in css processing, especially for complex documents with many elements. Can't comment on the javascipt interpeter, so I assume firefox is losing points somewhere else outside the screen painting engine.

Because of the Servo people that got laid off!

https://github.com/servo/stylo

Re: Mozilla Thunderbolt

#312

Post by thunderfork »

x0x0 wrote: post #119
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…

reddit tab, firefox: 428mb. same tab, chrome: 78mb.

Memory measurements reported in browsers come with substantial caveats, as measuring "how much memory is this tab using" is fairly nontrivial.

Not saying there isn't a difference, but you'd need to measure (e.g.) a fresh install viewing only one tab with no extensions, etc.

Re: Mozilla Thunderbolt

#313

Post by evil-olive »

there seems to be a significant disconnect between the claims in this press release / blog post and the actual reality if you look at the GitHub repo.

starting from the very first words of the announcement:

> Open-source and self-hostable

meanwhile, the readme [0] has a caveat, added today, about how it's only kinda-sorta self-hostable:

> While we eventually plan to make Thunderbolt fully offline-first, it currently depends on authentication and search functionality (though you can disable search on the integrations screen in the app). You can deploy your own backend with Docker and sign up in order to test it locally.

and if you follow the link to the self-hosting instructions [1] there's another caveat that was added today:

> Under active development — not production ready. Thunderbolt is currently undergoing a security audit and preparing for enterprise production readiness. These deployment paths are provided for evaluation and early testing. Do not use in production environments.

don't tell me it's self-hostable if what you really mean is "you can run it locally for testing".

meanwhile, scroll a bit farther down in the announcement:

> Work seamlessly across devices with native applications for Windows, macOS, Linux, iOS, and Android

which is repeated on the GitHub readme:

> Available on all major desktop and mobile platforms: web, iOS, Android, Mac, Linux, and Windows.

but as pointed out in [2] this is just flat-out incorrect - there are no release artifacts published, for any platform.

come on Mozilla, you need to be better than this. you have to know your target market is engineers and tech-savvy people who see through this sort of marketing fluff.

if you want to publish an announcement saying "we're working on a thing that will eventually do X, Y, and Z" then that's great.

if you want to release something that does X, Y, and Z, that's great too.

but don't over-promise and under-deliver. don't make an announcement that this thing can do X, Y, and Z and then "clarify" that the plan is to eventually do X, Y, and Z.

0: https://github.com/thunderbird/thunderbolt?tab=readme-ov-fil...

1: https://github.com/thunderbird/thunderbolt/blob/main/deploy/...

2: https://github.com/thunderbird/thunderbolt/issues/611

Re: Mozilla Thunderbolt

#314

Post by kasajian »

Someone explain to me why this product is unique. If Mozilla never came out with it, does that mean businesses are stuck with using cloud-based AI? C'mon. There's a lot of products that already offer local-AI. What am I missing?

Re: Mozilla Thunderbolt

#315

Post by PaulHoule »

tjoff wrote: post #276
PaulHoule wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a crazy crowded space. Any entry into this field looks like a "me too" product driven by FOMO instead of being motivated by (a) serving customer needs, (b) serving social needs, or (c) making money. (All of which are fine with me) It will get 0.5% market share -- and I'm supposed to get excited? If you lived in New York City you might think there are Duane Reades coast-to-coast but there are not. If you are base…

> Really the EU needs to apologize for those damned cookie popups and invest in a privacy-first browser. I love them. They are not mandatory, only shady websites that rather sell users information than providing a barely functional homepage. Yes the popups suck, but I'm very happy that this exposes the behavior and priorities of the industry.

It is insane to see very ordinary web sites that have 100 trackers but part of that is that the advertising economy gives everyone the incentive to screw each other with the backdrop that of course the metrics do not match across the funnel because people fall out as you go down the funnel —- but if you have 100 trackers they can’t all be lying in a coordinated way.

Re: Mozilla Thunderbolt

#317

Post by maxloh »

yencabulator wrote: post #309
maxloh wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Mozilla could stop doing everything else and slow burn their existing $1B into developer salaries over the next decade. They are actively choosing not to.

And then what? Just go bankrupt after a decade? That's entirely unsustainable.

Re: Mozilla Thunderbolt

#318

Post by yencabulator »

maxloh wrote: post #317
yencabulator wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mozilla could stop doing everything else and slow burn their existing $1B into developer salaries over the next decade. They are actively choosing not to.

And then what? Just go bankrupt after a decade? That's entirely unsustainable.

1. It's unfair to assume that their primary funding source stops in one scenario and not in the other.

2. 1 billion dollars is a lot of money. Even the interest off it is huge.

3. 10 years is a very long time in tech.

4. I would greatly prefer the money Mozilla earned due to Firefox being a thing was put into developing Firefox, yes. The current Mozilla organization seems to be a mechanism for providing third homes for the executives, starting projects nobody wanted them to start, sullying the Firefox brand with them, and then abandoning them. There's a VC cancer infesting the supposed "free software community" called Mozilla.

Re: Mozilla Thunderbolt

#319

Post by curio_Pol_curio »

PaulHoule wrote: post #132
anildash wrote: post #38

Addressing the usual few complaints folks always bring up: * This is from the separate independent team that works on Thunderbird, not Firefox, so there isn't any resource contention happening there * Thunderbird is revenue positive, and this potentially gives that team another revenue stream to be even more self-sustaining through charging companies * Businesses definitely want to control the AI they're using (espec…

It's a crazy crowded space. Any entry into this field looks like a "me too" product driven by FOMO instead of being motivated by (a) serving customer needs, (b) serving social needs, or (c) making money. (All of which are fine with me) It will get 0.5% market share -- and I'm supposed to get excited? If you lived in New York City you might think there are Duane Reades coast-to-coast but there are not. If you are base…

>"Girard"

>"99.9%"

I despise "centrist-moderation" just like any other guy but maybe "entrepreneurial dignity" is not 100% of something but 65\pm1% homeownership

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/mapped-europes-homeownershi...

Re: Mozilla Thunderbolt

#320

Post by SahAssar »

PaulHoule wrote: post #132
anildash wrote: post #38

Addressing the usual few complaints folks always bring up: * This is from the separate independent team that works on Thunderbird, not Firefox, so there isn't any resource contention happening there * Thunderbird is revenue positive, and this potentially gives that team another revenue stream to be even more self-sustaining through charging companies * Businesses definitely want to control the AI they're using (espec…

It's a crazy crowded space. Any entry into this field looks like a "me too" product driven by FOMO instead of being motivated by (a) serving customer needs, (b) serving social needs, or (c) making money. (All of which are fine with me) It will get 0.5% market share -- and I'm supposed to get excited? If you lived in New York City you might think there are Duane Reades coast-to-coast but there are not. If you are base…

> Really the EU needs to apologize for those damned cookie popups and invest in a privacy-first browser.

You clearly misunderstand when they are required and how they are legally required to work, the key points (as I take them) that are often misunderstood are:

* They are not about cookies, but any persistent identifier

* If a identifier is needed for your core functionality (ads/tracking is not a core functionality) and not misused for other purposes you do not need consent

* It is required to be as easy to decline as it is to consent

* Not consenting is not allowed to degrade or gate the content

* Even if you consent to tracking/cookies you should be allowed to withdraw that consent

Do you not agree with these points?

Post reply on HN