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

681–690 of 851 posts

Re: Is Mozilla trying hard to kill itself?

#681

Post by Cpoll »

renewiltord wrote: post #521
ryandrake wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People don’t like paying for software, demand constant updates and hate subscriptions. Yes, No, Yes? I don't demand constant updates. I don't want constant updates. Usually when a company updates software it becomes worse. I am happy with the initial version of 90% of the software I use, and all I want is bug fixes and security updates.

I suspect then it doesn't matter whether Mozilla kills itself or not. You should be fine with the current release of Firefox. Maybe you'd lose the installer, so all you have to do is put it somewhere safe and you're good.

> all I want is bug fixes and security updates.

Re: Is Mozilla trying hard to kill itself?

#682

Post by jrflowers »

vee-kay wrote: post #654
JoeJonathan wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like many others, the ability to run uBO is the main reason I use Firefox. Otherwise I'd use Chrome or Safari.

Firefox on Android mobile is also useful because it allows extensions - especially uBlock Origin (UBO), Ghostery, No script, etc. Some mobile browsers (e.g., Samsung Internet) used to allow extensions also, but they've become crap or dropped such support, so their usage has fallen. I like Firefox (for safety) and Vivaldi (Chromium browser, it's easier to use) on Android mobile. On iOS, Safari is simple and sufficient…

>On iOS, Safari is simple and sufficient, but I would prefer UBO there, however we all know Apple will never allow extensions for Safari.

fwiw Safari on iOS does allow some extensions and uBlock Origin Lite is free in the iOS App Store.

Re: Is Mozilla trying hard to kill itself?

#683

Post by roenxi »

kunley wrote: post #164
roenxi wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, the article's quoting didn't help its case. It doesn't seem fair to quote someone saying [I don't think X is a good idea] as evidence they are about to do X. That being said, in the original context [0] it does sound a lot more like an option on the table. That original article presents it as the weakest of a list of things they're about to explore - but who knows, maybe the journalist has butchered what was sa…

Except that expressing loud doubts about something ethically dubious is often a sign that an opposite action will be taken. So many business people want this moral excuse "but I had doubts" while being totally cynical

Logically that is setting up an argument where no matter what the CEO says you're going to assume they're going to take an action. If they say yea, obviously it is a yes. If they say nay, it means they're thinking about it which is basically a yes! That is a completely reasonable position, often it makes sense to ignore what someone says and focus only on their capabilities. But if that is the situation then it doesn't make any sense to quote what someone says because it is about to be ignored.

Re: Is Mozilla trying hard to kill itself?

#684

Post by LordDragonfang »

prmph wrote: post #535
arjie wrote: post #509

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a common cognitive error called Moral Thought-Action Fusion. The idea is that thinking about an action implies a desire to perform the action. You will see these in other circumstances as well. One place it is commonly used is in describing non-religious moral systems that must form their moral bases without axioms from God. A non-religious person may form a considered position against murder, for instance, but…

Don't really agree here. The point against him is thinking in a very shallow way that stopping ad block means bringing in so much, which I guess is true in a certain basic level, but ignores how shitty that would contribute to making the internet. And believe it or not, human behavior is such that something that is not even i in the space of possibilities is much less likely to occur that something that has been cons…

> which I guess is true in a certain basic level...

Which is the level he's acknowledging it on. Short term profit that cannibalises product value and user goodwill is all-too-common in the modern corporate climate, and he's acknowledging the elephant in the room.

> ...but ignores how shitty that would contribute to making the internet

Presumably, that would be the reason "he considers it "off-mission""

While I agree that him phrasing his reason not to so weakly instead of "doing so would kill firefox" is a little concerning, a CEO probably doesn't want to be overly honest about the other, less investor-friendly elephant in the room, "the only reason anyone uses Firefox is for uBO".

But also, we don't actually know how exactly he said it, since it's not a direct quote. For all we know, it was an offhanded remark, or he said it in a tone that meant he knew what a terrible idea it was. We're trying to read tea-leaves from a single paraphrased remark.

Re: Is Mozilla trying hard to kill itself?

#685

Post by invaliduser »

blubber wrote: post #674
1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #658

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The web is unusable without a proper Adblock" Unusable for the commenter perhaps, based on his choices, but not unusable in an absolute sense For example, I have been using the web without an adblock for several decades.^1 I see no ads Adblocking is only necessary when one uses a popular graphical web browser When I use an HTTP generator and a TCP client then no "adblock" is necessary When I use a text-only browser…

"When I use a text-only browser then no "adblock" is necessary" So you browser as if it were 1999? Yup, no ads back then.

The first ad blocker was released in 1996 [1] and in 1999 we had a lot of shiny, blinking and very colorful ads already [2]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_blocking#History

[2] https://www.webdesignmuseum.org/exhibitions/web-banners-in-t...

Re: Is Mozilla trying hard to kill itself?

#686

Post by AlexandrB »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #578
sltkr wrote: post #526

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you agree: for you, it's more important that the Mozilla CEO shares your political views, than that Mozilla makes a quality product. That's exactly what the parent post is talking about. When Mozilla started prioritizing political correctness over software quality, software quality predictably declined. That's why they are struggling now: they reduced their user base to the tiny group of political extremists that…

> So you agree: for you, it's more important that the Mozilla CEO shares your political views, than that Mozilla makes a quality product. He doesn't have to share all of them, but we have to have enough overlap for him to consider me & my friends enough of a human being to share the same rights that he does. As another commenter pointed out, there are beliefs heinous enough that will override the quality of optional…

Marriage is a right?

Re: Is Mozilla trying hard to kill itself?

#687

Post by caycep »

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…

Ah, instead of AGILE, it's MAFIA nowadays

Re: Is Mozilla trying hard to kill itself?

#688

Post by [deleted] »

blubber wrote: post #674
1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #658

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The web is unusable without a proper Adblock" Unusable for the commenter perhaps, based on his choices, but not unusable in an absolute sense For example, I have been using the web without an adblock for several decades.^1 I see no ads Adblocking is only necessary when one uses a popular graphical web browser When I use an HTTP generator and a TCP client then no "adblock" is necessary When I use a text-only browser…

"When I use a text-only browser then no "adblock" is necessary" So you browser as if it were 1999? Yup, no ads back then.

[deleted]

Re: Is Mozilla trying hard to kill itself?

#690

Post by AlexandrB »

dweinus wrote: post #480
miroljub wrote: post #457

The day Mozilla fired Brendan Eich for political reasons, Firefox died. It just took a while for everyone to realise that. That was when they collectively decided that other things are more important to them than the quality and usability of Firefox. The new CEO is just the final nail in their coffin.

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?

The words "bigot" and "racist" have been so overused that they've lost all meaning. "Fascist" is not all that far behind. In a recent interview, Nick Fuentes (much more deserving of the bigot label than Eich) openly said he's a racist. I suspect he lost 0 supporters by doing this. Abusing the language like this has consequences - not good ones.
Post reply on HN