321–330 of 349 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Brendan's personal political donations were his own business Eh, a CEO is a quasi-public figure. Those weren't his personal business entirely. (Consider a gay employee at Mozilla or partner.) That said, the solution was chastisement and a public apology. Not termination.
There was no evidence that Brendan discriminated against gay employees at Mozilla.
In a previous thread (these "Mozilla is dead" threads appear perennially) someone pointed out that Firefox's apparent marketshare drop is potentially indistinguishable from their deployment of privacy-improving features, including stubbing out Google Analytics when "Enhanced Tracking Protection" is enabled. I'm a Firefox user, so I have a vested interest in Mozilla's long term health and financial viability. But "mar…
Firefox has all sorts of telemetry reporting so they know exactly how much usage the browser is getting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you using uBlock Origin in Firefox on Android? If not, then try it. You'd have to prise it from my cold dead hands. By far the best mobile browsing experience. Not entirely perfect, there's a bug where I'll occasionally get a grey screen on a tab. Hasn't happened enough for me to do anything about tho. But still orders of magnitude better than my experience with Chrome on Android.
FYI, I've been using ublock origin with Firefox on android for years and never encountered the bug you're talking about, so it might be rooted in something else. I'm using a pixel 6 ( and a pixel 3 before that), in case that's relevant
I wish I could reproduce it to file a bug report. These stability bugs are the reason I'm hesitant to recommend Firefox to non-technophiles, especially since the web is unusable without at least an ad blocker. While I still use Firefox, Brave seems to be doing a much better job at blocking ads without slowing down.
Firefox will make a massive comeback if chromes kicks out Adblocker next year.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We laugh about it but at least it is not something cultural or political. I mean the bar is so low this focus is actually a plus in my book.
It is. Their interest in AI isn't about how to make it cheaper or more effective, it's how to make it "healthier" and "safer" by which they mean more ideologically controlled.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
According to the article,"Transitioning Mozilla away from Firefox." is the current organisation goal. She have done her job great. why was it a goal, I have bo idea
They likely view the idea off competing with Chrome - a key chess piece of the company keeping Mozilla around merely as a pet to ward of regulators - as impossible if not counterproductive to their mid-term survival at this point. Which is to say, at some point they might become annoying enough for Google to not want to pay them anymore, and then Mozilla would cease to exist shortly thereafter. So with that in mind,…
IMO Mozilla is default dead and so is Firefox. With 500M of revenue, ~$7M going to CEO is >1% of revenue being sucked by CEO (not even net profit).
From a distant observer, Mitchell is a parasite.
The Chromium Hegemony is winning and Safari is barely alive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> She also went years taking annual salary lower than she probably should have been taking. It frankly wouldn't be unreasonable to grant her lifetime emeritus status that comes with a no-strings-attached $1–2 million annual salary to sit on her hands and do nothing. Sorry, what? She was underpaid for a few years, so should get a couple mil forever now? Can you at least list out the "several important things?"
It is closer to 20 years. She was a founding member of Mozilla. Look back at the early financial statements, in a vacuum a few 100k to several 100k sounds like a lot. When you compare it to other executives in the Bay Area or the US she was significantly under paid compared to peers. Especially when considering stock options. What would it cost Mozilla to hire someone else? Before someone here says that they would be…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t understand how to read their “assets” table; but it looks like most of their revenue comes from “royalties,” which I’m sure has some specific meaning for these kinds of reports, but I’m not sure if it scales with numbers of users or not. If that’s the money they get from Google (huge guess alert, I’m probably wrong!), then I’m not sure if it would scale in the short there with the number of users; I guess the…
Mozilla Corp pays royalties to Mozilla Foundation to use Mozilla Foundation's trademarks. Mozilla Corp makes money by selling the default search engine position to Google, spends some of that money on Firefox development, and sends a lot of the rest to Mozilla Foundation in the form of those royalties.