401–410 of 970 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They also have the "extensions that can do real ad blocking" angle.
I've been using Chrome with uBlock Origin Lite and not even once I found a case when this version of uBlock was behaving differently (as less efficient) than the "full" uBlock Origin Maybe I'm just lucky, but even this argument is quite ... meh
It looks like they chose a Product Manager and MBA. Why can't we get a software engineer or computer scientist?
Why do you think a software engineer or computer scientist would be more qualified?
Fire fix usage went from I forget what but really significant down to the level people don't build site for it anymore. Pretty sure it's because they made security changes that broke the Intranet. What you want una browser is that it t works. Not some security pop-up telling it doesn't work. Especially if you wrote the website. Still annoying evert time https://127.0.0.1 is flagged as insecure
Does anyone else feel like the "Trust" angle is the only card they have left to play? Technically, Chrome is faster on JS benchmarks. Edge has better OS integration on Windows and comes by default. Safari wins on battery life on Mac. Firefox's only unique selling point is "We aren't a massive data vampire." If they clutter the browser with AI which inherently requires data processing, often in the cloud, they dilute…
Fitefox has faster WASM and WebGPU at least. Kind of doesn't matter since Chrome has bloated the standard so much that many websites only work in chrome
Regarding WASM at least, it seems to depend. https://arewefastyet.com/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Translation? Image search? Live captions? Dubbing? Summary? Rewrite text better?
Translate sure. Image search? I have a search engine for that. Live captions? Didn’t ask for that, wouldn’t use it. Dubbing? Ditto. Summary? Wouldn’t trust an AI for that, plus it’s just more tik-tokification. No fucking thanks. I don’t need to experience life as short blips of everything. Rewrite text better? Might as well kill myself once I’m ready to let a predictive text bot write shit in my place. So… no thanks.
> Image search? I have a search engine for that.
Plus, Search by Image[0] is one of the most popular extensions, with 3x as many people using it as tree-style tabs.
I don't use it but a grammar tool is the next most popular[1], so I could see this being quite a useful feature.
But the other stuff, I'm with you. I like translate but I personally don't care for dubbing, summarizing, or anything else.
[0] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/search_by_ima...
[1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/languagetool/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd be interested if the issue you ran into was actually due to poor architecture or just something not fully implemented in the pre-release. Unfortunately, it's closed source - so hard to tell from the outside.
Well it was definitely a bug. It worked in some cases (I think it even worked in google at first, and then a few days later it manifested). And the feature was advertised, even though, again, they never claimed the software to be release quality. But my point is that, similar to security, you don't want to build this kind of feature piece meal. Either the containers are fundamentally walled off or they aren't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How many engineers are enough to make a browser? How do you know? Vivaldi employ 28 developers and 33 others to make an unstable Chromium fork and email program.[1] Bloat and bullshit features to you are minimum requirements to someone else. [1] https://vivaldi.com/team/
Ladybird had fewer devs, so what were these devs at Vivaldi doing? I don't think your argument has a lot of merit. 28 is not a magic number.
The Ladybird developers have not produced a browser comparable to Firefox or Vivaldi. Vivaldi have not produced a browser engine comparable to Ladybird of course.
> I don't think your argument has a lot of merit. 28 is not a magic number.
28 is a magic number was not a reasonable interpretation of my comment.
"Mozilla's former CEO, Mitchell Baker, earned nearly $7 million in 2022, with compensation rising from around $3 million in 2020 to over $5.5 million in 2021 and $6.9 million in 2022" I wonder how much the new CEO is making now.
Just to clarify how outrageous the Mozilla CEO compensation is, consider that Tim Cook makes 0.019% of Apple's revenue in compensation ($75M on $391BN of revenue). For Sundar Pichai (Google), it's 0.003%; Samsung is 0.0001%; Nadella at Microsoft is 0.032%. For Mozilla? 1.18%! That's almost FORTY TIMES these other companies. Apple revolutionized mobile computing; Google revolutionized search, Microsoft owns enterprise…
Having worked at Mozilla a while ago, the CEO role is one I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. Success is oddly defined: it's a non-profit (well, a for-profit owned by a non-profit) that needs to make a big profit in a short amount of time. And anything done to make that profit will annoy the community. I hope Anthony leans into what makes Mozilla special. The past few years, Mozilla's business model has been to just m…
Why? might be I'm just missing something, but I don't understand why this needs to be a goal of theirs?