Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Is Mozilla trying hard to kill itself?

infosec.press

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

641–650 of 851 posts

Re: Is Mozilla trying hard to kill itself?

#641

Post by dweinus »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #536
dweinus wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A) Firing a CEO because there is an immediate, massive public shaming of them is entirely rational from a business perspective B) This is the hill you want to die on? That being a bigot should be a protected status for CEOs?

> This is the hill you want to die on? That being a bigot should be a protected status for CEOs? That is a wildly uncharitable take. I'm not OP, but I believe that nobody , CEOs or otherwise, should be fired for their activities outside of work. That can be political beliefs, but doesn't have to be either. And yes, that means that sometimes someone whose beliefs you find repugnant is going to have a good job. That is…

So Subway should bring back Jared and Jello should bring back Cosby? Freedom is not a one-way street that guarantees the right to be awful without social consequences.

Re: Is Mozilla trying hard to kill itself?

#643

Post by freeAgent »

notepad0x90 wrote: post #470

I think people are wildly overreacting. There is a new CEO and he wants to make a splash so the throws around "AI" that's it. Of course there will be AI related features in firefox, there already are! Wait and see what the actual specifics are before reacting? Also, a small minor detail here: We're not paying for firefox! why are so many people feeling entitled? Mozilla has to do something other than beg Google to su…

Unfortunately, it’s impossible to donate to Firefox development. Donations to Mozilla expressly do not got to pay for Firefox since Firefox is for-profit and they’ve decided to not accept money from users. So I guess we are already “the product.”

Re: Is Mozilla trying hard to kill itself?

#645

Post by BuckRogers »

I exclusively used Firefox for 20 years. I moved over to Edge and haven't looked back. Mozilla and the people still using it seem to think maintaining your own rendering engine with Gecko is somehow keeping the internet free. Wrong abstraction layer of freedom to worry about. It's the most bizarre thing I've ever seen. It should have moved to Webkit or Blink many years ago, and focused on user experience. Such as extensions to keep MV2 addons working, and even expanding on the capabilities, like the old XUL/XPCOM Firefox extensions. Those things are why people like me used Firefox, not because of all the money and work put into Gecko. Which is just redundant in the end.

Moving to Blink or Webkit, keeping MV2 and XUL, was where the effort should have been placed. Also, I never understood Pocket or any of their other decisions. Now it's being floated to ban adblockers. Poorly run organization that given its direction and decisions, deserves to die.

Re: Is Mozilla trying hard to kill itself?

#646

Post by t23414321 »

pmontra wrote: post #612
mghackerlady wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there an extension that limits JS to things that actually improve websites (like the bare minimum needed to render a page usable under most metrics)

uMatrix, from the same author of uBO. It's been officially unsupported for years but it still works and it's UI is better then the UI of NoScript and of course much better than the incomprehensible subsystem of uBO that should have replaced uMatrix.

Didn't one of those extensions had an option to regexp replace content of JS files ? (Now how to do that: with parsing - or with magical chains ??:)

Right, that could be nice use of AI to extract only the good parts - or, at least, to adjust the rules for https://addons.mozilla.org/en-GB/firefox/addon/requestcontro... by function.

Re: Is Mozilla trying hard to kill itself?

#647

Post by sakompella »

drawfloat wrote: post #193
pas wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

multiple things can be true at once. is that too much money for one person? well, apparently it depends on who do you ask. and even if the board members who approved it might thought it's too much, it still could have been cheaper than to fire the CEO and find a new one and keep Mozilla on track. CEO compensation is usually a hedge against risks that are seen as even more costly, even if the performance of the CEO is…

It's too much money for a non-profit that is failing by all possible metrics and is saying it is struggling for revenue.

Parallelly, it is on par for similar positions.

Re: Is Mozilla trying hard to kill itself?

#648

Post by adverbly »

lxgr wrote: post #41

>> He says he could begin to block ad blockers in Firefox and estimates that’d bring in another $150 million, but he doesn’t want to do that. It feels off-mission. > It may be just me, but I read this as “I don't want to but I'll kill AdBlockers in Firefox for buckerinos ”. Yes, that does seem like a pretty uncharitable interpretation of that quote. I read it as "we won't do it, even though it would bring in $150M US…

I'm not sure it's that uncharitable...

The original quote was apparently said without an understanding of the customer base as if ad blockers were not a core piece of their value proposition.

This person doesn't understand their customer if they think it's going to bring in more money to cut ad blockers... It would bring in far less money because they would lose most of their customer base. It's not off mission: it's off Target.

Re: Is Mozilla trying hard to kill itself?

#649

Post by mghackerlady »

kirth_gersen wrote: post #593
immibis wrote: post #570

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NoScript, but you can only control it per domain.

+1 for NoScript. It is kind of a pain for the first few days when you have to spend 10-30 seconds reloading sites to allow the minimum needed. It is also eye opening to see how much bloat is added and how fast pages load without all the extra bs.

Thats my problem though, I don't want to have to allow the minimum for each site. I wish there was a noscript-like extension that used a public database of sorts to allow what's needed and block everything else, including things that are "needed" but suck so bad you shouldn't use the site
Post reply on HN