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

41–50 of 366 posts

Re: Mozilla Thunderbolt

#41

Post by bakugo »

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…

> Thunderbird is revenue positive

Is that why I'm met with a splash screen asking me to donate every time I start Thunderbird? Is this another Wikipedia situation?

Re: Mozilla Thunderbolt

#43

Post by panzi »

ramon156 wrote: post #28
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

Ladybird soon™

Not nearly soon enough. But yes, there is hope. Far away hope, but still.

Re: Mozilla Thunderbolt

#46

Post by tux3 »

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…

>Thunderbird is revenue positive

Hmm, I thought the for-profit Thunderbird pro hadn't launched yet?

I know Thunderbird is for profit, but what are they profitting from without the paid service, and how much of that profit is going into this unrelated Thunderbolt AI platform, exactly?

Re: Mozilla Thunderbolt

#47

Post by bryanlarsen »

BowBun wrote: post #21
benoau wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What does this one differently that the other thirteen in a dozen don't? Mozilla's a lot more trustworthy with privacy and data, and they're unlikely to sell the project to someone who only wants to stuff it full of malware/adware/crypto stuff - or do it themselves.

I'm somewhat a fan of Mozilla, but their weak governance with regards to actual plans for the future, a couple of questionable partnerships, and the graveyard of products makes it hard to trust based on a 15+ year-old reputation. Would love to see where Mozilla has meaningfully contributed to the modern tech space (things we all actually use, not Mozilla versions of more popular apps/tools)

But despite that, Mozilla is still far more trustworthy than virtually everybody else. Who would you trust more? I imagine it's a very short list. Which is a sad state of affairs.

Re: Mozilla Thunderbolt

#49

Post by pndy »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #20
thecrumb wrote: post #6

"Mozilla Bubble" Building things no one wants.

[flagged]

Watefox, Librewolf have both plucked out all unnecessary stuff Mozilla added over the years. Both are good but Librewolf comes with history and cache disabled by default which may be bit surprising.

Floorp comes with additional custom interface features, workspaces (tabs grouping) and mouse gestures. And bit better profiles feature - Mozilla decided to redo it recently which lead to some problems.

Mullvad has build in VPN, DoH and proxy as an extension, and comes with uBo and NoScript.

There's Zen browser that has a quite uncommon UI, and obscure Pale Moon that IIRC still tries to provide old XUL/XPCOM extensions - which often leads to pages rendering issues.

Re: Mozilla Thunderbolt

#50

Post by einr »

dralley wrote: post #39
einr wrote: post #24

[flagged]

>120k LoC of probably largely vibecoded nonsense for a window with a text box and a button that lets you send and receive some data over a HTTP API. "I will make loads of assumptions without checking so that I can invent reasons to get mad" Note that about 30,000 of those lines are JSON files for localization and testing, as one example.

How much UI text does this thing have that it needs thousands of lines of localization? Where are these files?

Especially curious because I see a whole lot of hardcoded english text in there…

Post reply on HN