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

351–360 of 366 posts

Re: Mozilla Thunderbolt

#351

Post by [deleted] »

PaulHoule wrote: post #347
SahAssar wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Frankly I feel having to clear modal dialogs is like getting a lobotomy. I don’t ever want to see one. I don’t want to ever be asked “click on the traffic lights”. I don’t want to have to clear 1, 2, 3 or 4 more modals asking for my email address on a blog. I want “respect DNT or go to jail” GDPR normalized enshittification, turned it from something that was unambiguously evil to something that was required, virtuous…

[deleted]

Re: Mozilla Thunderbolt

#352

Post by maxloh »

yencabulator wrote: post #348
glenstein wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>1. It's unfair to assume that their primary funding source stops in one scenario and not in the other. Wait, what? I thought your whole premise from one comment ago was that they "stop doing everything" and exclusively slow burn away their endowment. They're dead by 2029 if they do that. If they don't do that, then you're just talking about how they currently operate.

The money paid by Google so Chrome does not look like a monopoly is earned by Firefox and specifically for Firefox to exists as a viable-enough competitor. If anything, maintaining Firefox properly is the branch that earns that money. Mozilla should stop doing all these side quests -- look at their track record! -- and they should get rid of the fat executive layer. They should transparently report what they're using…

Actually, it makes much more sense if Google pays Mozilla to maintain an alternative that never becomes truly competitive.

I don't think actual competition benefits Google in a commercial sense. If we considered the situation purely rationally, Google's most logical decision would be to use their budget as leverage, threatening off the books to prevent any strategy that might make Firefox "viable again", under the assumption that Google focused primarily on market share, while Mozilla focused purely on survival.

Re: Mozilla Thunderbolt

#353

Post by yencabulator »

maxloh wrote: post #352
yencabulator wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The money paid by Google so Chrome does not look like a monopoly is earned by Firefox and specifically for Firefox to exists as a viable-enough competitor. If anything, maintaining Firefox properly is the branch that earns that money. Mozilla should stop doing all these side quests -- look at their track record! -- and they should get rid of the fat executive layer. They should transparently report what they're using…

Actually, it makes much more sense if Google pays Mozilla to maintain an alternative that never becomes truly competitive. I don't think actual competition benefits Google in a commercial sense. If we considered the situation purely rationally, Google's most logical decision would be to use their budget as leverage, threatening off the books to prevent any strategy that might make Firefox "viable again", under the as…

Yes, Google definitely has an incentive to keep Firefox inferior. If it became a real competition, that money flow would likely stop.

However, if Firefox drops to ~0% usage, it will definitely stop, as that ruins Google's monopoly defense, which is the motivation for it! Firefox usage is supposedly already as low as 2.33%.

Re: Mozilla Thunderbolt

#354

Post by androiddrew »

Yesterday I actually read the docs on Open WebUI. It’s pretty impressive all the features it supports. I will give thunderbolt a look but I’m seriously considering doubling down on Open WebUI. The only thing I don’t like about their features are that tools and functions can’t be offloaded to external compute, it runs on the same machine.

Re: Mozilla Thunderbolt

#355

Post by drzaiusx11 »

aucisson_masque wrote: post #302
manfredz wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know, but there are other ways of funding besides -completely- volunteer run. Take look at Ladybird https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladybird_(web_browser)?wprov=s...

You can't seriously compare ladybird, a mostly broken browser nowhere ready or even remotely close to it, to Firefox. Ladybird will be dead in a few years.

There's a strong desire to keep the web an open platform, if the alternative to WebKit isn't going to be Firefox, it'll simply have to be something else. I'd gladly contribute to the cause, beit ladybird or something else. For now it would be monetarily until my impending retirement when I can contribute hours without impacting my family.

I wouldn't discount ladybird or others simply because they haven't shipped their mvp just yet. They're closing in on a usable product. Maybe they never make it, but servo and others may. Saying they'll be dead in a few years isn't contributing much besides pessimism for anything but the status quo.

Re: Mozilla Thunderbolt

#356

Post by drzaiusx11 »

PaulHoule wrote: post #235
patmorgan23 wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A leading web browser can not be built and maintained by volunteers.

The EU says it cares about privacy. although it's actions have normalized enshittification; the EU could fully fund Firefox or a Firefox fork or another browser in a second and stop all the trackers right in their tracks.

Monetary contributions via government grants have happened in the past. Iirc that's how VLC got their start.

Re: Mozilla Thunderbolt

#357

Post by drzaiusx11 »

eipi10_hn wrote: post #325
drzaiusx11 wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure the counter argument you're making tbh. The license or patch cycles of either project is irrelevant in this example. The money changing hands between the original product and it's competitor is the issue at stake here. I'll spell it out in Mozilla's case: If money is provided by a direct competitor, and that same money is _critical to the continued existence of the original project_ as it is in Mozilla's…

The argument is you are using OS as a counter example when it's not the counter example. What is the chromium of OS world but Linux doesn't depend on them?

The Linux Foundation has many, diverse corporate donors, and Linux enables software like ChromeOS, yes. These are all true, but doesn't change the argument that it's a bad call to take the vast majority of your income from a single, direct competitor.

I truly don't grok the point you're trying to make, but that's likely a me problem. Your points appear to all be asides to the core issue at hand.

Re: Mozilla Thunderbolt

#358

Post by drzaiusx11 »

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #168
rothific wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thunderbolt was funded from a grant, not donations. https://github.com/thunderbird/thunderbolt/blob/main/docs/fa...

I think the rest of that line is really kind of important: > Thunderbolt is funded through a grant from Mozilla. Is there any way that that's not taking dollars out of the same organization that's funding Firefox or thunderbird?

No

Re: Mozilla Thunderbolt

#359

Post by drzaiusx11 »

patmorgan23 wrote: post #220
manfredz wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are plenty ways to fund digital commons, including people volunteering their time.

A leading web browser can not be built and maintained by volunteers.

But several entire operating systems can an do operate entirely by the volunteer model? I don't follow...

Re: Mozilla Thunderbolt

#360

Post by drzaiusx11 »

pipeline_peak wrote: post #219
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…

Where exactly do you expect Mozilla to gain revenue from other than non browser projects? Do you want people to pay to use Firefox?

If by "people" I mean everyone and not just direct users of their products. Something more akin to the Linux or Apache Foundations, including both private sector donations and government grants etc. A DIVERSE set of funding sources, not sharing ad revenue from a direct competitor. Having "people" directly pay to play as it were would never work, as we've seen before in other industries like news, etc.
Post reply on HN